Speed cameras invade personal privacy
They'll identify your face not just your car
We know where you live
Scameras have traditionally been focused on the car, and the law has relied on drivers identifying themselves. It's led to civil liberties groups arguing that this process violates human rights, one of whose principles is it's for the authorities to prove a case against an alleged criminal, not for citizens to incriminate themselves.
That could be all in the past, however, as The Times reports today that police are about to install new technology that will be able to capture an image of the driver's face. It's designed to solve what the police call the growing problem of drivers passing-off penalty points to others with the aim of avoiding penalty points on their driving licences. Stats suggest that there are 160,000 drivers with nine or more points whose incentive to pass off points would be great.
The new camera will allow police to investigate further if they believe that a passing off attempt is being made in such circumstances. They may even come round to your house to take a look.
Already, the Essex camera partnership has trialled the device, which is made by Gatso. According to the report, some 1,000 cases have been identified where the driver attempted to pass off points.
London's partnership is installing some in Lower Thames Street, and Derbyshire has, apparently, shown an interest, and they will soon spread across the country.
So when you're driving, not only will your car be identifiable, soon you will be too -- whether or not you have points on your licence or you're breaking the speed limit. There appears to be no end to the extent to which our authorities, who are spending our money after all, are prepared to go to invade the privacy of the country's citizens.
article said:
So when you're driving, not only will your car be identifiable, soon you will be too -- whether or not you have points on your licence or you're breaking the speed limit.
That's in direct contradiction to the description of the system in The Times, which has the forward facing camera triggering the 'driver camera' when it fires
article said:
There appears to be no end to the extent to which our authorities, who are spending our money after all, are prepared to go to invade the privacy of the country's citizens.
By accurately identifying us when we commit crimes ? Shocking
Better outlaw witnesses, CCTV, security guards, and those pesky policemen. pppppp said:
The Question has to be asked - to the average individual, what is the greater threat, money generating speed cameras & over zealous traffic 'wardens' or Al Qaeda.
Although I can't entirely reject the notion of an accident where a coach driver is dazzled by the flash from a Gatso on the other side of the road, loses control, crashes into a lorry full of gas cylinders, which then explodes, and, by a shocking twist of fate, uncovers a previously unknown structural flaw in the structure of One Canada Square, leading to it and the neighbouring HSBC building collapsing - I'd err towards the threat between terrorists trying to kill us and an enforcement device, regardless of how unfair you regard that enforcement, being totally incomparable.
>> Edited by J111 on Wednesday 24th May 10:58
J111 said:
Although I can't entirely reject the notion of an accident where a coach driver is dazzled by the flash from a Gatso on the other side of the road, loses control, crashes into a lorry full of gas cylinders, which then explodes, and, by a shocking twist of fate, uncovers a previously unknown structural flaw in the structure of One Canada Square, leading to it and the neighbouring HSBC building collapsing - I'd err towards the threat between terrorists trying to kill us and an enforcement device, regardless of how unfair you regard that enforcement, being totally incomparable.
But how many people work in those buildings compared with the number of drivers on the road?
Personally I'd say my chances of being caught up in your proposed accident are far greater than being caught up in a collapse of One Canada Square. I pass speed cameras daily but have never been to Canary Wharf. So Yes speed cameras are more dangerous!
thrapperthorpe said:
Time to buy one of those Spitting Image style rubber masks- Tony Blair anyone?
Haha, excellent idea.
I presume he went to school with lord somebody or'other who's now head of the scamera partnership. Ya know - one of these good socialists that Eaton and Fetis produce so many of.
Maybe he's using the revenue as protection money so uncle George doesn't instigate a regime change over here.
I thought that digital images were difficult to use as "evidence" due to the inability to prove that they are what they appear to be, not faked in any way. With film-based pictures used in evidence I thought it was the negative, not the picture, which is the primary evidence. I assume that for prosecutions of serious offences (perverting the course of Justice is not some simple traffic fine!) then defence lawyers would be entitled to call for exclusion of any evidence that could not be proved. In that case, net of these cameras, unless people break down when confronted, would there be any evidence of the attempt to pervert the course of Justice at all?
Did I imangine this? or has the law of evidence changed?
Obviously the guys at the Scamera partnerships don't watch Columbo. Has anyone seen the one where the murderer (a judge I think, how ironic) tries to fake an alibi by having his assistant speed through a camera wearing a mask of him. Unfortunately it was a flat photo, and Peter Falk being the genius that he is noticed that there wasn't a shaddow under the nose, so it was a mask! So remember to add the shaddow!
More fun for bikers though 
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff