Discussion
According to this...
[url]www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/30/anpr_legality_debate/[/url]
But what's the betting nothing comes from this!!
[url]www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/30/anpr_legality_debate/[/url]
But what's the betting nothing comes from this!!
Fort Jefferson said:
If they are illegal now, they'll just change the rules so there not. Which I don't have a problem with.
The report states, "The commissioners are of the view that legislation is likely to be required to establish a satisfactory framework to allow for the latest technological advances"
chrispy porker said:
ANPR merely does what a man with a clipboard and a pencil and a radio could do. It just does it thousands of times faster.
Have you read the report? If not I suggest you do. It contains a number of ways in which ANPR is somewhat different to 'a man with a clipboard'.
Hate to say it but Sir Andrew Leggat knows his stuff and if he says there is a problem Tony boy can't fob him off. Sir A.L. is the main man here.
What he is saying is that there MAY be an issue.
I know in Scotland they take what he has to say very serious and its getting worked on. He will probably make recomendations that wll be adopted. i.e. change the rules.
very interesting. Good spot good post
What he is saying is that there MAY be an issue.
I know in Scotland they take what he has to say very serious and its getting worked on. He will probably make recomendations that wll be adopted. i.e. change the rules.
very interesting. Good spot good post
chrispy porker said:
All ANPR does is very quickly perform PNC checks. A human performs a PNC check and a record is kept of it showing the time and location. What is the difference except the speed at which it is done?
Not strictly correct. In true ANPR style I'm not going to discuss what it does but could I suggest you don't work directly with it or you would not have said that?
With the greatest respect of course.
Ok if I'm reading this right the issue is actually with recording video of people without their prior knowledge, rather than with ANPR as a technology in its own right.
If that's the case, why doesn't the same apply to a Vascar unit with video recording or to an LTI 20-20 with a video attached? Or does it and they just don't want to let on about that? Surely they collect all the same data on cars within their field of view...
If that's the case, why doesn't the same apply to a Vascar unit with video recording or to an LTI 20-20 with a video attached? Or does it and they just don't want to let on about that? Surely they collect all the same data on cars within their field of view...
It is interesting that the article talks about the fact the signage is required.
As from my thread on this www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=330914&f=10&h=0
You would never know the TrafPol car had ANPR unless you could recognise the little grey box stuck on the roof.
Very covert indeed!
As from my thread on this www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=330914&f=10&h=0
You would never know the TrafPol car had ANPR unless you could recognise the little grey box stuck on the roof.
Very covert indeed!
Discussion around the office on this topic suggests that there may even be a knock on effect with mobile cameras. The section of RIPA that deals with surveillance states that a RIPA authorisation is required for any DIRECTED surveillance. Drawing a parallel to my own work, we came to the conclusion that RIPA authorisation would not be required for a mobile camera unit to park up at the side of the road observing the traffic. However, as soon as the opinion is formed that a vehicle may be exceeding the speed limit and the laser pointed at him, that is DIRECTED surveillance of an individual. For this to be legal, between the time that the opinion is formed that someone may be speeding and the laser is pointed at that vehicle, a RIPA authorisation would need to be submitted and approved.
All we need now is a test case......
All we need now is a test case......
Forgive me if I'm wrong but if a policement is doing as you say then he is qualified to make the decision if you are to be checked with whatever equipment is being used. Further to that I seem to remember that Police are supposed to put out signs warning the motorists that speed checks are being made (this is certainly the case with TVP - not sure about anywhere else) - the signage is there already as part of the way they work.
The real issues is with the fully automated mechanisms that incorporate ANPR - scameras and SPECS spring to mind. GATSO sits somewhere in the middle, signage is required already and the cameras have to be clearly marked plus the processing is (to the best of my knowlege) performed manually to filter out mis-fires.
The real issues is with the fully automated mechanisms that incorporate ANPR - scameras and SPECS spring to mind. GATSO sits somewhere in the middle, signage is required already and the cameras have to be clearly marked plus the processing is (to the best of my knowlege) performed manually to filter out mis-fires.
gilbertd said:
Discussion around the office on this topic suggests that there may even be a knock on effect with mobile cameras. The section of RIPA that deals with surveillance states that a RIPA authorisation is required for any DIRECTED surveillance. Drawing a parallel to my own work, we came to the conclusion that RIPA authorisation would not be required for a mobile camera unit to park up at the side of the road observing the traffic. However, as soon as the opinion is formed that a vehicle may be exceeding the speed limit and the laser pointed at him, that is DIRECTED surveillance of an individual. For this to be legal, between the time that the opinion is formed that someone may be speeding and the laser is pointed at that vehicle, a RIPA authorisation would need to be submitted and approved.
All we need now is a test case......
IMHO authorisation is not required as ANPR operation fails the test in s26(2) of RIPA, which states: All we need now is a test case......
(2) Subject to subsection (6), surveillance is directed for the purposes of this Part if it is covert but not intrusive and is undertaken-
(a) for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation;
(b) in such a manner as is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person (whether or not one specifically identified for the purposes of the investigation or operation); and
(c) otherwise than by way of an immediate response to events or circumstances the nature of which is such that it would not be reasonably practicable for an authorisation under this Part to be sought for the carrying out of the surveillance. I suggest that ANPR (covert nature or not notwithstanding) fails the test in sub-paragraph (a) and therefore (because of the inclusive "and" after sub-paragraph (c)) fails the definition in s26(2).
Streaky
While I approve of the (supposed) purpose for which APNR is deployed I'm not at all happy about pervasoive surveilence.
I think we should scrap nearly all CCTV in public spaces and severely limit the time logs from it, phones, ISPs etc. can be kept to no more than ~3-6 months.
I already feel safe.
...apart from erosions to my privicy.
I think we should scrap nearly all CCTV in public spaces and severely limit the time logs from it, phones, ISPs etc. can be kept to no more than ~3-6 months.
I already feel safe.
...apart from erosions to my privicy.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff