Big Brother's net decends?

[dark_reaper]

Source:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09...nition_poised/
"Number plate recognition poised for national UK rollout
By John Lettice
Published Sunday 21st September 2003 15:06 GMT
Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are set to be deployed by police forces throughout the UK as a major plank of a campaign of "denying criminals the use of the roads." The system will link up to the DVLA, Police National Computer and a National Insurance Database, with these links alone giving it the capability of identifying untaxed, unroadworthy and uninsured vehicles, but they'll also facilitate police surveillance operations, the swapping of data on "prolific offenders" between forces and, well, other stuff... Take this, for instance:

"Eventually the database will link to most CCTV systems in town centres, meaning that all vehicles filmed on one of the many cameras protecting Bedford High Street, for instance, can be checked against the database and the movements of wanted cars traced to help with serious crime investigations."

The quotation is from a supplement to last week's issue of Bedfordshire on Sunday, paid for by the Bedfordshire Police Authority, but is based on a press release issued by the Authority earlier this year in support of "National APNR Day." Should this festival have passed you, like us, entirely by, you'll find some details here. Some 26 forces across the UK took part in the day, 21st May, checking 60,000 vehicles over a six hour period, resulting in 2,000 "activations", of which over 1,000 were reported for offences, with 65 arrests being made.

What happened to the rest of the 1,000 offenders? These will have been largely DVLA violations, possibly with some insurance offenders, although as far as we're aware the national insurance database is currently only partially online. A further report of the event from the BBC, here, claims a smaller number of forces and a larger number of arrests, but the reference to fixed penalty notices gives a signpost to how the system will operate once it's fully deployed.

You may, rightly, wonder about Bedfordshire Police's fevered promises regarding CCTV cameras. In the first place, CCTV and ANPR equipment are two separate things, with CCTV cameras not being designed for, and most certainly not being capable of, number plate recognition. And in the second place, there are legal restrictions governing the use of CCTV cameras in public places, meaning that prior to adding ANPR to CCTV stations the operating authorities should really be considering their legal position.

Deployment at CCTV stations is still some years down the line, but the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) ANPR FAQ lists it as one of four classes of ANPR system: "In-car devices; Transportable (e.g. mobile units that can be set up at the roadside); CCTV (that ?piggy-back? on existing systems); Fixed gantry systems that continuously monitor a stretch of road (e.g. in ports)."

So far, ANPR systems have been used in a relatively small number of tests, conducted by a relatively small number of forces with mobile units, i.e. monitoring so far has been highly selective. The second phase of tests, over 23 forces, ends in December, with a national rollout (probably the point at which gantries and CCTV piggybacking will be considered) anticipated for next summer.

How widespread will ANPR be? By its nature, such systems can only work effectively if they have a high percentage chance of identifying offenders. A mobile system swoop on a small number of roads over a couple of days will certainly produce a large number of offenders and a nice press release, but won't have more than a symbolic effect on the problems the system is intended to tackle. So rationally, if they're going ahead, ANPR should follow, perhaps even exceed, speed cameras when it comes to pervasiveness.

The approach used with the current test systems, of pairing camera teams with response teams, clearly won't work with permanently-sited systems, so there has to be an automated penalty system (as with speed cameras), and with this comes a need for corroboration systems in the event of disputes about accuracy, who was driving, obscuring of number plates, and so on.

The Association of Chief Police Officers' does not yet have policy guidance for ANPR, but the Road Policing Technology Code of Practice covers speed cameras in some depth, and will perhaps give you some indicators of the issues involved. You'll note there are issues involving privacy and retention of data, and one could reasonably presume that the widening of deployment and purpose of ANPR will require similar guidance.

What kind of systems can we anticipate? Through CCTV, the UK is already one of the most watched countries in the world, and the widespread deployment of ANPR will add to this. It will, certainly, reduce the number of dangerous cars, and may even reduce insurance premiums (it's the prospect of saving money, not necessarily the same thing, which has induced the insurance companies to chip in for the database), but with this we get the extra watching, for free.

Aside from improving and extending their data on the movements of 'known villains', the police will be logging the movements of everybody else as well. This data will likely be thrown away after a period, but is unlikely to be thrown away immediately - they demand retention of mobile phone and internet records, so the police data retention policies will at best be on a par with these.

Funnily enough, this trackability is what's going to happen anyway, a few further years down the line, when the government's plans for satellite tracking of vehicles and for associated road pricing schemes become feasible. But, erm, if we end up with a system with similar functionality based on ANPR before then, it's perfectly possible the show could be brought forward. Or, given that Transport for London is already operating a road-pricing scheme based on ANPR, there's a logic to joint police-local authority deployments in major cities. So pretty soon, we wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody started using the magic words, "pay for itself." ®"

So now, in the UK, if the government wants, anyones car movements can be tracked. The government wants to introduce ID cards as well within 8 years or so, after which they would be compulsory. In addition to that, in all towns there are now CCTV cameras everywhere. Maybe it'll lead to a greater safety for the majority, but Im not entirely comfortable with the idea of being tracked anywhere I go.

[viraljimmy]

Originally Posted by dark_reaper

Im not entirely comfortable with the idea of being tracked anywhere I go.

Get used to it. It's coming.
That goes for the US too.

[destroy_erase_improve]

"pay for itself."
the amount of money a city makes just off of cameras on top of intersection lights
is enough revenue to push a full bill through all the policital b.s. quickly.

i am personally against cameras all over
for a number of reasons.
i remember seeing the first camera over an intersection in my area
they say its for light runners
but im not buying it

[whitedeath]

I read about something like this too....It's such a huge violation of privacy it's ridiculous.

Has anyone read 1984? Maybe we're not that far off.

[dark_reaper]

Originally Posted by whitedeath

Has anyone read 1984? Maybe we're not that far off.

Not read 1984 but saw the film. Didnt think too much of the film but I dont think there was the time to fully explore the issues within the film, so when I get some time I might read the book.

The governments continue to make reductions in personal liberties in the name of safety, although people will agree with measures because its safety they prefer, but since they bring about changes so insidiously, very few seem to care. Eg ID cards, since most people in the UK have a passport, they want to make it mandatory for someone to have a card. Then once the majority have cards, they'll make it compulsory to have a card. After that, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it mandatory to carry a card. If they tried to implement a law making ID cards mandatory to carry now, there'd be uproar, but since they do it bit by bit...

Although I don't like the idea of being constantly monitored, as I said before, what I really hate the idea of, is the level of control that a goverment had in the near future. It could be made very difficult to do anything against an administration/do anything an administration deems unacceptable eg break laws. On the face of it, this might seem a good thing that people would have difficulty breaking laws. However, it normally takes pressure to change laws and opinions, precedents in law are almost exclusively set when challenged by someone doing something that was previously thought to be illegal. But how can a new precedent be set if it can't be challenged? Another example is demonstrations against unjust things, eg Black people wanting equal rights/women wanting the vote. If a government was to know all the people in a demonstration, it might be able to "disuade" from demonstrating again. It might take a while before a goverment had this level of control, though.

Maybe my hypothetical events are just paranoia and unlikely to happen but this is the way it seems to me.

[myceliod]

Start stocking up on firearms!
VIVA A LA RESISTANCE

People are scared and don't care about freedom so much anymore... They just wanna be safe... I would rather die free then live caged, personally...

[Bromius]

Seems like life is destined to get both scarier and more boring at the same time. It is amazing what people will sacrifice to feel safe.

I agree with Dark Reaper, the push for these changes is slow because of public resistence and the rate of technological development, but it is proceeding. I doubt there is any central force pushing this. Insurance companies want to save money, police departments want to make busts, politicians want to claim a drop in crime so they can get reelected. Most of this is in the name of self interest. Ultimately though, like the myriad of other problems that unrestrained self interest can cause, these measures will probably hurt us in the end. We could very well wind up locking ourselves in cage of our own construction.

[nomoreusmc]

well if you really think about it, control is power. They (goverment) wants complete control over everyone and every thing. Safety is just a front, they want power. Don't you think it's funny that most of the laws you vote on naver make much of an impact. But the laws that are in congress change our lives. Why don't we get to vote on the laws that change our lives. Congress men don't care what the avarge man thinks. If we had an oppertunity to change the laws do you really think there would be all the conflicts and dischord. I really think that the government needs a complete overhaul, actually put the people in power, not congress, not the president, not rich people, but the people.

[dark_reaper]

Originally Posted by myceliod

Start stocking up on firearms!
VIVA A LA RESISTANCE

Shame firearms are illegal in the UK
At least I have my sword and knives. I really want a crossbow though.

[dark_reaper]

Originally Posted by nomoreusmc

I really think that the government needs a complete overhaul, actually put the people in power, not congress, not the president, not rich people, but the people.

I agree. Im English so I dont know American politics too intimately, but I've looked into it. In my opinion, it needs to be seperated as much as possible from money. Prevent rich people from being the only ones being able toget into power. Money and power corrupt, so rich people with power isnt the best combination. I think presedential campaigns shouldnt dependso much on who panders to which companies in order to get donations.
An alternative might be to give both sides a budget to fight their campaign, possible dependant to a degree on how they did last time around. Maybe this could be funder by taxing companies, such as those who already donate to campaigns, slightly more. It would mean not just the rich could run, and would reduce the links with big companies, meaning they would be free to pass laws that would benefit the people, not to satisfy the debt they owe to companies.

[Hippie3]

If we had an oppertunity to change the laws do you really think there would be all the conflicts and dischord

indeed i do.
people are human, even poor ones and rich ones alike.
so i'd expect no change in behavior,
except perhaps for the worse
as poorer people tend to be less educated
and so often resort to crude ill-concieved plots
that more highly educated people would avoid.

[Hippie3]

An alternative might be to give both sides a budget to fight their campaign,

both ?
what about the socialists, the communists, the greens,
the nazis ??
should every party be given an equal budget
or just the 2 officially sanctioned parties ?

[shedthemonkey]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

both ?
what about the socialists, the communists, the greens,
the nazis ??
should every party be given an equal budget
or just the 2 officially sanctioned parties ?

And there is the crux of the messed up USA political system. It is rigged to pretend there are two distinct parties with the illusion that grassroots third to seventh parties can compete.

Republicrats are the only party and corporations run EVERYTHING. I hope nobody ever needs bankrutpcy protection anymore cuz now companies are the only ones allowed to do that. It used to be that corporations were short lived entities with limited rights. Now they are eternal (just change the name every so often) and have more rights than humans. Oh well. Untell they put the two way telescreen in every room of my house and office, I will still have at least the illusion of privacy and mush-space. George Orwell was a friggin Genious with 1984 and Animal Farm.

Just saying the red herrings are starting to smell pretty strongly.

My Tuppence.

[jbaggs1]

Soon big brother will be looking into graves. Orwell never went far enough.

[shedthemonkey]

For those who like literature, here is a free literature site where you can read tons of books online.

http://www.online-literature.com/

and the specific link for 1984:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

It is really a pretty short book, but has sooooo much relavence it is scary.

[Hippie3]

the eternal nature of corporations is a concern,
one wonders how much money
General Motors will have
in 300 years....

[shedthemonkey]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

the eternal nature of corporations is a concern,
one wonders how much money
General Motors will have
in 300 years....

You know what would be cool hip? If politicians had to wear jumpsuits that had patches that had the logos and names of the contributing companies so they looked like NASCAR sponsorships, with size of patch corresponding to the size of the contributions. That would be kind of a truth in advertising, so we could see whose interest each was really gunning for.

I like the spoof they do on Simpsons and Futurama where they have companies named CONGLOMO and stuff.