RE: Mass Surveillance Hits Manchester
Tuesday 20th May 2008
Practically every car that drives into Manchester is being photographed by a new network of police cameras, it has emerged.
Mass Surveillance Hits Manchester
Every motorist entering Manchester has vehicle details logged
After London, the northern city is the first to use Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras in this way and it is estimated 600,000 motorists a day are being snapped by the new technology.
The police are understood to be storing the information for five years to fight terrorism, crime and car theft, with the police claiming they have ‘enormous benefits’.
When drivers use 12 major routes to enter the city their number plates, car colour and time they entered the city are all logged on a central database.
Civil rights campaigners have hit out at the scheme, saying that it was another step closer to a ‘Big Brother’ state.
The information that is recorded is checked with the DVLA and Police National Computer.
James Welch, legal director of the civil rights group Liberty, told the BBC: ‘We have no problem with its use to locate vehicles whose owners police firmly suspect of having committed an offence.
‘But it shouldn't be used for mass surveillance, or to target people the police have a hunch are up to no good.’
Discussion
I welcome this.
Roll on big brother and ID cards.
If someone kidnaps my kids, knocks down my brother without insurance, steals my car* or robs my house*, i wanna know where they went and if i get an extra speeding fine so what. Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
Roll on big brother and ID cards.
If someone kidnaps my kids, knocks down my brother without insurance, steals my car* or robs my house*, i wanna know where they went and if i get an extra speeding fine so what. Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
- Rather common there.
it is closer than you think ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7409593.stm
Before I retired I had to set up and administer these cameras, their accuracy is about 95% so not foolproof.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7409593.stm
Before I retired I had to set up and administer these cameras, their accuracy is about 95% so not foolproof.
bencollins said:
Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
Anything? Ok, we'll implement a curfew for all males after 6pm at night. The penalty for being out after this time is death.Or indeed, nuke the entire site from orbit. That'd cut crime for sure.
I put it to you that your statement is demonstratably false.
Why don't they just put a GPS transmitter on top of all our heads straight after birth then they will know our every move.
This is a slippery slope and we're picking up speed every day.
If we were under that much threat then our transport infrastructure would be better protected.
Instead its all speculation pumped out by the goverment to the media to make the populous scared.
As its easier to "Control" a scared populous and to take away our civil liberties and freedoms.
Meaning the "terrorists/law breakers" win.
This is a slippery slope and we're picking up speed every day.
If we were under that much threat then our transport infrastructure would be better protected.
Instead its all speculation pumped out by the goverment to the media to make the populous scared.
As its easier to "Control" a scared populous and to take away our civil liberties and freedoms.
Meaning the "terrorists/law breakers" win.
bencollins said:
I welcome this.
Roll on big brother and ID cards.
If someone kidnaps my kids, knocks down my brother without insurance, steals my car* or robs my house*, i wanna know where they went and if i get an extra speeding fine so what. Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
The Spanish have had ID cards for a number of years....Roll on big brother and ID cards.
If someone kidnaps my kids, knocks down my brother without insurance, steals my car* or robs my house*, i wanna know where they went and if i get an extra speeding fine so what. Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
- Rather common there.
It didn't stop the Madrid Train bombings.
Any form of Identification doesn't stop someone from buying a weapon, using it and so on....
Many CCTV images/footage is too poor to be used as substantial evidence in most criminal cases.
Lowering crime, maybe more 'beat' police? a piece of plastic doesn't stop criminals.
bencollins said:
I welcome this.
Roll on big brother and ID cards.
If someone kidnaps my kids, knocks down my brother without insurance, steals my car* or robs my house*, i wanna know where they went and if i get an extra speeding fine so what. Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
So you think that these people will carry valid ID and have proper number plates do you?Roll on big brother and ID cards.
If someone kidnaps my kids, knocks down my brother without insurance, steals my car* or robs my house*, i wanna know where they went and if i get an extra speeding fine so what. Anything to lower crime in Manchester has got to be good.
- Rather common there.
I would argue that an oppressive police state would raise crime levels rather than lower them, due to the fact that the vast majority of the populance would have little regard for the law.
I really don't know what to say to this issue any more?
Maybe all those "right wing freedom" lunatics who build comunes in rural America and are arming themselves to the teeth are actually onto something?
I'm not a criminal but this sort of infringement on my freedom and personal choice makes me actually want to go out and make a point of flowting the law.
In reality it means I will never go to Manchester or London now.
Maybe all those "right wing freedom" lunatics who build comunes in rural America and are arming themselves to the teeth are actually onto something?
I'm not a criminal but this sort of infringement on my freedom and personal choice makes me actually want to go out and make a point of flowting the law.
In reality it means I will never go to Manchester or London now.
The story reads
‘But it shouldn't be used for mass surveillance, or to target people the police have a hunch are up to no good.’
Whats wrong with that!
If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about.. Mr Welch.
If I was plucked from my bed and beaten by the authorities for an overdue parking offence then I would like Liberty to preach about human rights, but if this type of surveillence stops crime or helps prevent it, then where's the problem.
Most crime involves a car as does most things in life.
Like I said " If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about "!
There's to many sandle wearing hippies !@£$ing our society up with there "yeah man! " views.
A nation needs dictating to, keep us in check.
As i've said before, this country changed in 1965....... there was real freedom then! and not the freedom hippies refer to whilst in there drug confused stupor.
‘But it shouldn't be used for mass surveillance, or to target people the police have a hunch are up to no good.’
Whats wrong with that!
If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about.. Mr Welch.
If I was plucked from my bed and beaten by the authorities for an overdue parking offence then I would like Liberty to preach about human rights, but if this type of surveillence stops crime or helps prevent it, then where's the problem.
Most crime involves a car as does most things in life.
Like I said " If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about "!
There's to many sandle wearing hippies !@£$ing our society up with there "yeah man! " views.
A nation needs dictating to, keep us in check.
As i've said before, this country changed in 1965....... there was real freedom then! and not the freedom hippies refer to whilst in there drug confused stupor.
Titan Simba said:
Hang on. Now they'll be storing the info for five years, but only minutes ago I was reading that they can only store info relating to speeding for one year (costs too high, etc.)
How convenient: when it doesn't benefit the motorist cost is not an issue.
B
DS!
As I posted elsewhere:How convenient: when it doesn't benefit the motorist cost is not an issue.
B
DS!streaky said:
The Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information made under sections 39 and 39A of the Police Act 1996 and sections 28, 28A, 73 and 73A of the Police Act 1997 says that information can be deleted if "it is no longer considered that the information is necessary for police purposes."
The Code does not set out any retention periods, but a Guidance document (to which the Code refers) issued by ACPO states:
"7.2.3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996
The CPIA Code has established requirements for retaining information relevant to investigations for set periods of times. It states that relevant information must be retained at least until:
• A decision is taken whether to institute proceedings against a person for an offence;
• The accused is convicted, acquitted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case;
• The convicted person is released from custody or hospital in those cases where a custodial sentence or hospital order is imposed;
• Six months from the date of conviction in all other cases.
Note: The retention periods set down by the CPIA Code are a minimum requirement and, in most cases, the retention requirements outlined in this guidance will far exceed those imposed by the CPIA. Information should still be retained for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so, irrespective of the CPIA requirements for it. For example, the PNC will hold all conviction data until the record subject is deemed to have reached 100 years of age regardless of how long this information is required for CPIA purposes."
The Guidance goes on to say:
"7.4 NATIONAL RETENTION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
This section sets out the framework for decision making about the retention of police information. The key points relating to the National Retention Assessment Criteria are:
• The infringement of an individual’s privacy created by the retention of their personal information must satisfy the proportionality test;
• Forces must be confident that any records they dispose of are no longer necessary for policing purposes;
• There must be a consistent approach to the retention of police information.
All records, which are accurate, adequate, up to date and necessary for policing purposes, will be held for a minimum of six years from the date of creation. This six year minimum is a means of ensuring that forces have sufficient information to identify offending patterns over time, and helps guard against individuals’ efforts to avoid detection for lengthy periods.
Beyond the six year period there is a requirement to review whether the record is still necessary for a policing purpose. The review process specifies that forces may retain records only for as long as they are necessary and the template in Appendix 4 provides guidance on establishing
whether or not information is still needed for a policing purpose."
StreakyThe Code does not set out any retention periods, but a Guidance document (to which the Code refers) issued by ACPO states:
"7.2.3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996
The CPIA Code has established requirements for retaining information relevant to investigations for set periods of times. It states that relevant information must be retained at least until:
• A decision is taken whether to institute proceedings against a person for an offence;
• The accused is convicted, acquitted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case;
• The convicted person is released from custody or hospital in those cases where a custodial sentence or hospital order is imposed;
• Six months from the date of conviction in all other cases.
Note: The retention periods set down by the CPIA Code are a minimum requirement and, in most cases, the retention requirements outlined in this guidance will far exceed those imposed by the CPIA. Information should still be retained for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so, irrespective of the CPIA requirements for it. For example, the PNC will hold all conviction data until the record subject is deemed to have reached 100 years of age regardless of how long this information is required for CPIA purposes."
The Guidance goes on to say:
"7.4 NATIONAL RETENTION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
This section sets out the framework for decision making about the retention of police information. The key points relating to the National Retention Assessment Criteria are:
• The infringement of an individual’s privacy created by the retention of their personal information must satisfy the proportionality test;
• Forces must be confident that any records they dispose of are no longer necessary for policing purposes;
• There must be a consistent approach to the retention of police information.
All records, which are accurate, adequate, up to date and necessary for policing purposes, will be held for a minimum of six years from the date of creation. This six year minimum is a means of ensuring that forces have sufficient information to identify offending patterns over time, and helps guard against individuals’ efforts to avoid detection for lengthy periods.
Beyond the six year period there is a requirement to review whether the record is still necessary for a policing purpose. The review process specifies that forces may retain records only for as long as they are necessary and the template in Appendix 4 provides guidance on establishing
whether or not information is still needed for a policing purpose."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff