ANPR - Have Your Say

ANPR - Have Your Say

Author
Discussion

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Volvolover said:
There’s some people on here who appear to think that if they protect their data they can somehow be ‘off grid’ etc

There’s an old spy trick that the best place to hide from someone looking for you is in a crowd
The only difference is

When you are one line of 65535 other lines of captured VRN data, you don't 'blend in' because you can be found with CTRL-F (putting it in the simplest terms)

Then you are one person, standing out like a neon beacon, and not only that, with ANPR data you can highlight the person you are looking for, and then see everywhere they stood and everywhere they went and at what time within that 'crowd'


I'm for ANPR to track people who think the rules don't apply to them, to highlight people with drugs markers, to disrupt criminal activity and to help with investigations into serious crimes.

One thing to note, is ANPR is only as effective as the data it captures - if i am intending to commit a murder or run drugs up and down the country, i'd probably get some plates printed from an identical make/model/year/colour car, stick to the speed limit and be happy that i've at least removed that element from any investigation.

or... wait for a foggy night smile
Someone still needs to put ctrl f (not really how big data works but i'm humouring you and the masses will understand) etc etc etc as opposed to just making yourself stand out anyway

Evanivitch

8,798 posts

86 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
There’s some people on here who appear to think that if they protect their data they can somehow be ‘off grid’ etc

There’s an old spy trick that the best place to hide from someone looking for you is in a crowd
laugh No one can hide in a crowd if we're all serialised. Do you actually work with data or just have a compliance role for a pic'n'mix factory?

Killboy

2,694 posts

166 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Lol. People's understanding of GDPR looks to be the same as how cookies "work" hehe

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
There’s some people on here who appear to think that if they protect their data they can somehow be ‘off grid’ etc

There’s an old spy trick that the best place to hide from someone looking for you is in a crowd
laugh No one can hide in a crowd if we're all serialised. Do you actually work with data or just have a compliance role for a pic'n'mix factory?
Of course you can you idiot......because someone still has to look for you as opposed to you just presenting yourself as an outlier.

You can find anything if you look hard enough obviously

Its pretty obvious who knows what on this thread, ive already made your assertion that VRN is stated clearly as PI look like the nonsense it is by quoting the ICO guidance that tells you the context in which it can be PI depending on what else is processed. (direct/indirect)

Stick to being a second rate tennis player, as said 15 years of IS027001 accreditation with my name on the tin is enough to tell me i know what i'm talking about thanks






Edited by Volvolover on Wednesday 3rd March 09:55

Pan Pan Pan

7,688 posts

75 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Countdown said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ddom said:
Because it’s fk all to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue.
This, many times over.
The accusation that "it's all about revenue" is a re herring IMO. if the Police/Guv'mint scrapped the fines and simply imposed points "we" would still be unhappy because the main thing is we don't want anybody to stop us from driving fast.
Define fast.
I try to drive to the posted limits, since I don't see the point of using motorized vehicles, and then doing less, than the posted limits, vehicle type, and road conditions allow.
Within that, the issue is that some people`s fast is another persons slow. and of course we have the idiots who believe that if they are driving slowly, they are driving safely, when they are doing nothing of the sort.
Maybe I should have said "more than 10% over the posted limit" rather than simply "fast". I agree that "one person's fat is another person's slow" and that's why we have an independent body deciding what the appropriate limit is. That doesn't mean that the limit is always safe but it's a useful reference point.

The way i see is that there are certain rules that people need to follow in order to be allowed to drive. e.g. Have a licence, a vehicle that is taxed, insured and MOT'd and then observe the traffic laws. You can drive perfectly safely without any of those in the appropriate circumstances but I doubt any PHer would defend somebody driving without a licence/tax/Insurance/MOT or argue that it was just a money making exercise, but speeding is fine? confused

Apologies for rambling; we like driving fast because it gives us an adrenaline buzz. The government think driving fast increases risk and tries to get people to drive within limits by imposing deterrents. It's as simple as that IMHO, there isnt any profit motive
Generally agreed, but I still believe that some conflate the idea that driving slowly, means they are driving safely (which it patently is not) whilst driving faster is automatically not safe.
Any moving vehicle (even a bicycle) has the ability to injure or kill as soon as it starts moving. I just like getting around as quickly, and safely, as legally possible.
Of course we may not agree with some speed limits which can be either too slow or too fast, but they are what they are, and until changed by law, they are what we must adhere to, whether we agree with them, or not. with all the technology being introduced to limit speed it sometimes seems like drivers will be needing the abilities of a jet fighter pilot to maintain perfect control of their speeds, which I suspect few will ever have.
During lockdown I was obliged to travel a good distance to pick my Brother up from hospital, and was able to drive at the legal limit on each of the roads I was using, and I was able to get to and from the destinations in excellent time. which made me think if people could just adhere to the legal limits we have now, good journey times would be possible, without the need for speeding or speed cameras, but possibly not ANPR ,as these have the ability to detect motor crime, beyond the simplistic focus on just speeding.

Countdown

30,245 posts

160 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
Generally agreed, but I still believe that some conflate the idea that driving slowly, means they are driving safely (which it patently is not) whilst driving faster is automatically not safe.
Any moving vehicle (even a bicycle) has the ability to injure or kill as soon as it starts moving. I just like getting around as quickly, and safely, as legally possible.
Of course we may not agree with some speed limits which can be either too slow or too fast, but they are what they are, and until changed by law, they are what we must adhere to, whether we agree with them, or not. with all the technology being introduced to limit speed it sometimes seems like drivers will be needing the abilities of a jet fighter pilot to maintain perfect control of their speeds, which I suspect few will ever have.
During lockdown I was obliged to travel a good distance to pick my Brother up from hospital, and was able to drive at the legal limit on each of the roads I was using, and I was able to get to and from the destinations in excellent time. which made me think if people could just adhere to the legal limits we have now, good journey times would be possible, without the need for speeding or speed cameras, but possibly not ANPR ,as these have the ability to detect motor crime, beyond the simplistic focus on just speeding.
Dammit, I don't disagree with what you've posted.....this is so annoying biggrin

Evanivitch

8,798 posts

86 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Of course you can you idiot......because someone still has to look for you as opposed to you just presenting yourself as an outlier.

You can find anything if you look hard enough obviously

Its pretty obvious who knows what on this thread, ive already made your assertion that VRN is stated clearly as PI look like the nonsense it is by quoting the ICO guidance that tells you the context in which it can be PI depending on what else is processed. (direct/indirect)

Stick to being a second rate tennis player, as said 15 years of IS027001 accreditation with my name on the tin is enough to tell me i know what i'm talking about thanks


Edited by Volvolover on Wednesday 3rd March 09:55
laugh Why does anyone need to look for you when a few lines of code bring you front and center?

I guess 15 years of doing the same thing in a data entry job have left you 15 years behind the here and now.

Pan Pan Pan

7,688 posts

75 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Generally agreed, but I still believe that some conflate the idea that driving slowly, means they are driving safely (which it patently is not) whilst driving faster is automatically not safe.
Any moving vehicle (even a bicycle) has the ability to injure or kill as soon as it starts moving. I just like getting around as quickly, and safely, as legally possible.
Of course we may not agree with some speed limits which can be either too slow or too fast, but they are what they are, and until changed by law, they are what we must adhere to, whether we agree with them, or not. with all the technology being introduced to limit speed it sometimes seems like drivers will be needing the abilities of a jet fighter pilot to maintain perfect control of their speeds, which I suspect few will ever have.
During lockdown I was obliged to travel a good distance to pick my Brother up from hospital, and was able to drive at the legal limit on each of the roads I was using, and I was able to get to and from the destinations in excellent time. which made me think if people could just adhere to the legal limits we have now, good journey times would be possible, without the need for speeding or speed cameras, but possibly not ANPR ,as these have the ability to detect motor crime, beyond the simplistic focus on just speeding.
Dammit, I don't disagree with what you've posted.....this is so annoying biggrin
Thank you wink I don't really get much of a buzz from going massively fast on the ground. If I want to get somewhere fast, I will fly myself there, if a suitable airport / airfield is available, but this is not always an option, nor one available to everyone.
Ironically the only time I really get a sensation of speed, when flying is when near the ground, otherwise it`feels' like just plodding along.
I tend to try to allow enough time to reach my destination to allow for traffic, accidents etc.
I do find, that the times I do feel the need to exceed a speed limit, is when I have been held up beyond the time I allowed for a journey, because if I say I will be at a destination at a specific time, that is the time I really want to arrive.
I often wondered if cars could be fitted with a warning sound that adjusts to suit the speed limit being driven through, which starts sounding as soon as 10% over the limit is achieved, and which gets progressively louder the more the limit is exceeded. This would not affect the vehicles ability to exceed a given limit, but may act as a deterrent if regularly exceeding posted limits. The problem being that many cars these days, can be quick, but are so quiet at speed, all too often drivers don't have a true impression of just how fast they are going, unless looking at a needle on a dial.

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
Of course you can you idiot......because someone still has to look for you as opposed to you just presenting yourself as an outlier.

You can find anything if you look hard enough obviously

Its pretty obvious who knows what on this thread, ive already made your assertion that VRN is stated clearly as PI look like the nonsense it is by quoting the ICO guidance that tells you the context in which it can be PI depending on what else is processed. (direct/indirect)

Stick to being a second rate tennis player, as said 15 years of IS027001 accreditation with my name on the tin is enough to tell me i know what i'm talking about thanks


Edited by Volvolover on Wednesday 3rd March 09:55
laugh Why does anyone need to look for you when a few lines of code bring you front and center?

I guess 15 years of doing the same thing in a data entry job have left you 15 years behind the here and now.
Because you need to generate the command to look in the first place....

You keep banging the same drum but you're looking increasingly silly.

bigothunter

907 posts

24 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
I often wondered if cars could be fitted with a warning sound that adjusts to suit the speed limit being driven through, which starts sounding as soon as 10% over the limit is achieved, and which gets progressively louder the more the limit is exceeded. This would not affect the vehicles ability to exceed a given limit, but may act as a deterrent if regularly exceeding posted limits. The problem being that many cars these days, can be quick, but are so quiet at speed, all too often drivers don't have a true impression of just how fast they are going, unless looking at a needle on a dial.
Hard speed limiters are the answer. No need for speed cameras. That will stop those arrogant bds breaking the rules. hehe

Pixelpeep Z4

6,412 posts

106 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Volvolover said:
There’s some people on here who appear to think that if they protect their data they can somehow be ‘off grid’ etc

There’s an old spy trick that the best place to hide from someone looking for you is in a crowd
The only difference is

When you are one line of 65535 other lines of captured VRN data, you don't 'blend in' because you can be found with CTRL-F (putting it in the simplest terms)

Then you are one person, standing out like a neon beacon, and not only that, with ANPR data you can highlight the person you are looking for, and then see everywhere they stood and everywhere they went and at what time within that 'crowd'


I'm for ANPR to track people who think the rules don't apply to them, to highlight people with drugs markers, to disrupt criminal activity and to help with investigations into serious crimes.

One thing to note, is ANPR is only as effective as the data it captures - if i am intending to commit a murder or run drugs up and down the country, i'd probably get some plates printed from an identical make/model/year/colour car, stick to the speed limit and be happy that i've at least removed that element from any investigation.

or... wait for a foggy night smile
Someone still needs to put ctrl f (not really how big data works but i'm humouring you and the masses will understand) etc etc etc as opposed to just making yourself stand out anyway
I understand, i am a data analyst by trade, and have been for the last 15 odd years smile

the point no one has touched on is the people we 'trust' to have access to this data.

Real world example - i was dating a girl who worked for Orange (mobile phone network..) - She text me around 10pm one night and i couldn't be bothered to reply so left it. In the morning she called me and asked why i didn't reply. I said, "sorry, fell asleep" - to which she replied, "well, not too asleep that you couldn't send messages to your ex, carly..?"

Before calling me she'd gone into my account, pulled up my call history, seen this number i was texting, (which unluckily for me was also orange) so she looked up that account info, and recognised the name..)

This is a blatant breach but the point is, it's too late once it's 'out' - she would have been sacked if they did an investigation but the damage (to me) was done.

How many jealous partners are gonna be speaking to their 'mates' who have access to these ANPR databases to see where people are going? Everyone has their price.

I don't think enough is being done to limit the physical amount of people that have access, and these people are not reviewed often enough as to if they still need access.

I've worked on some pretty large DBs in my time - regularly find users with fairly high access who have left the organisation over a year ago etc

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Volvolover said:
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Volvolover said:
There’s some people on here who appear to think that if they protect their data they can somehow be ‘off grid’ etc

There’s an old spy trick that the best place to hide from someone looking for you is in a crowd
The only difference is

When you are one line of 65535 other lines of captured VRN data, you don't 'blend in' because you can be found with CTRL-F (putting it in the simplest terms)

Then you are one person, standing out like a neon beacon, and not only that, with ANPR data you can highlight the person you are looking for, and then see everywhere they stood and everywhere they went and at what time within that 'crowd'


I'm for ANPR to track people who think the rules don't apply to them, to highlight people with drugs markers, to disrupt criminal activity and to help with investigations into serious crimes.

One thing to note, is ANPR is only as effective as the data it captures - if i am intending to commit a murder or run drugs up and down the country, i'd probably get some plates printed from an identical make/model/year/colour car, stick to the speed limit and be happy that i've at least removed that element from any investigation.

or... wait for a foggy night smile
Someone still needs to put ctrl f (not really how big data works but i'm humouring you and the masses will understand) etc etc etc as opposed to just making yourself stand out anyway
I understand, i am a data analyst by trade, and have been for the last 15 odd years smile

the point no one has touched on is the people we 'trust' to have access to this data.

Real world example - i was dating a girl who worked for Orange (mobile phone network..) - She text me around 10pm one night and i couldn't be bothered to reply so left it. In the morning she called me and asked why i didn't reply. I said, "sorry, fell asleep" - to which she replied, "well, not too asleep that you couldn't send messages to your ex, carly..?"

Before calling me she'd gone into my account, pulled up my call history, seen this number i was texting, (which unluckily for me was also orange) so she looked up that account info, and recognised the name..)

This is a blatant breach but the point is, it's too late once it's 'out' - she would have been sacked if they did an investigation but the damage (to me) was done.

How many jealous partners are gonna be speaking to their 'mates' who have access to these ANPR databases to see where people are going? Everyone has their price.

I don't think enough is being done to limit the physical amount of people that have access, and these people are not reviewed often enough as to if they still need access.

I've worked on some pretty large DBs in my time - regularly find users with fairly high access who have left the organisation over a year ago etc
I agree that often the governance (or lack of) is an obstacle to a great data project.

Pan Pan Pan

7,688 posts

75 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I often wondered if cars could be fitted with a warning sound that adjusts to suit the speed limit being driven through, which starts sounding as soon as 10% over the limit is achieved, and which gets progressively louder the more the limit is exceeded. This would not affect the vehicles ability to exceed a given limit, but may act as a deterrent if regularly exceeding posted limits. The problem being that many cars these days, can be quick, but are so quiet at speed, all too often drivers don't have a true impression of just how fast they are going, unless looking at a needle on a dial.
Hard speed limiters are the answer. No need for speed cameras. That will stop those arrogant bds breaking the rules. hehe
No! hard speed limiters are dangerous. A driver may have to accelerate hard to avoid a collision. Anything that artificially limits what the vehicle will need to do in an emergency situation, is dangerous, and should not be countenanced .
If you don't like driving at the posted limits, why don't you just go everywhere by bus, a lot cheaper than running a car, and you can look at the scenery going by (but you may be doing that already which is why you seem to want to go everywhere slowly?)

bigothunter

907 posts

24 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
No! hard speed limiters are dangerous. A driver may have to accelerate hard to avoid a collision. Anything that artificially limits what the vehicle will need to do in an emergency situation, is dangerous, and should not be countenanced .
If you don't like driving at the posted limits, why don't you just go everywhere by bus, a lot cheaper than running a car, and you can look at the scenery going by (but you may be doing that already which is why you seem to want to go everywhere slowly?)
Hard speed limiters set at 56mph have been fitted to vans and trucks over 3500kg for many years. Vans below 3500kg with tow bars have tachographs and 70mph hard limiters. Soft limiters are scheduled on new cars from 2022. After initial acceptance, the proposal under review is to make them fixed. Exceeding 70mph will not be possible. "Elephant racing" at 56mph enjoyed by trucks on dual carriages will be extended to cars vying for position at 70mph.

Dangerous or not, hard limiters are coming - it's just a matter of time rolleyes

saaby93

27,994 posts

142 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
No! hard speed limiters are dangerous. A driver may have to accelerate hard to avoid a collision. Anything that artificially limits what the vehicle will need to do in an emergency situation, is dangerous, and should not be countenanced .
If you don't like driving at the posted limits, why don't you just go everywhere by bus, a lot cheaper than running a car, and you can look at the scenery going by (but you may be doing that already which is why you seem to want to go everywhere slowly?)
Hard speed limiters set at 56mph have been fitted to vans and trucks over 3500kg for many years. Vans below 3500kg with tow bars have tachographs and 70mph hard limiters. Soft limiters are scheduled on new cars from 2022. After initial acceptance, the proposal under review is to make them fixed. Exceeding 70mph will not be possible. "Elephant racing" at 56mph enjoyed by trucks on dual carriages will be extended to cars vying for position at 70mph.

Dangerous or not, hard limiters are coming - it's just a matter of time rolleyes
The problem they've got is that the stats show higher accident rates in lower speed limits.
Given a free hand most people drive at the safest speed for the type of road.

bigothunter

907 posts

24 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
No! hard speed limiters are dangerous. A driver may have to accelerate hard to avoid a collision. Anything that artificially limits what the vehicle will need to do in an emergency situation, is dangerous, and should not be countenanced .
If you don't like driving at the posted limits, why don't you just go everywhere by bus, a lot cheaper than running a car, and you can look at the scenery going by (but you may be doing that already which is why you seem to want to go everywhere slowly?)
Hard speed limiters set at 56mph have been fitted to vans and trucks over 3500kg for many years. Vans below 3500kg with tow bars have tachographs and 70mph hard limiters. Soft limiters are scheduled on new cars from 2022. After initial acceptance, the proposal under review is to make them fixed. Exceeding 70mph will not be possible. "Elephant racing" at 56mph enjoyed by trucks on dual carriages will be extended to cars vying for position at 70mph.

Dangerous or not, hard limiters are coming - it's just a matter of time rolleyes
The problem they've got is that the stats show higher accident rates in lower speed limits.
Given a free hand most people drive at the safest speed for the type of road.
That's interesting - do you have any reference data (eg web links) which endorse the point please?

Pixelpeep Z4

6,412 posts

106 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
bigothunter said:
saaby93 said:
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
No! hard speed limiters are dangerous. A driver may have to accelerate hard to avoid a collision. Anything that artificially limits what the vehicle will need to do in an emergency situation, is dangerous, and should not be countenanced .
If you don't like driving at the posted limits, why don't you just go everywhere by bus, a lot cheaper than running a car, and you can look at the scenery going by (but you may be doing that already which is why you seem to want to go everywhere slowly?)
Hard speed limiters set at 56mph have been fitted to vans and trucks over 3500kg for many years. Vans below 3500kg with tow bars have tachographs and 70mph hard limiters. Soft limiters are scheduled on new cars from 2022. After initial acceptance, the proposal under review is to make them fixed. Exceeding 70mph will not be possible. "Elephant racing" at 56mph enjoyed by trucks on dual carriages will be extended to cars vying for position at 70mph.

Dangerous or not, hard limiters are coming - it's just a matter of time rolleyes
The problem they've got is that the stats show higher accident rates in lower speed limits.
Given a free hand most people drive at the safest speed for the type of road.
That's interesting - do you have any reference data (eg web links) which endorse the point please?
Even more argument for keeping a vintage weekend toy on the fleet smile

saaby93

27,994 posts

142 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
bigothunter said:
That's interesting - do you have any reference data (eg web links) which endorse the point please?
Its well known - otherwise we wouldnt have different speed limits on different types of roads
Look at the published data each year and see whats happened as more 20 limits have been introduced
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
ods format



Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 4th March 12:39

bigothunter

907 posts

24 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
ts well known - otherwise we wouldnt have different speed limits on different types of roads
Look at the published data each year and see whats happened as more 20 limits have been introduced
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
ods format
Thanks thumbup

But 20 mph is still safer than 30 mph on the same roads. And 10 mph is safer than 20 mph. No cars moving at all would be even safer.

Ref from this report:
"Some of the year-on-year changes in this table will relate to increases / decreases in the length of the road with the
given speed limit. This is particularly the case with roads limited to 20 mph which are likely to have increased
significantly in recent years. The Department is considering the best way to measure the change in the amount of
roads limited to 20 mph."





saaby93

27,994 posts

142 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
bigothunter said:
saaby93 said:
ts well known - otherwise we wouldnt have different speed limits on different types of roads
Look at the published data each year and see whats happened as more 20 limits have been introduced
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
ods format
Thanks thumbup

But 20 mph is still safer than 30 mph on the same roads. And 10 mph is safer than 20 mph. No cars moving at all would be even safer.
Unfortunately human behaviour doesnt work like that....
A normal person will feel higher speeds are more risky so be more aware and drive more safely and end up driving where they feel safest.
Same for pedestrians - theyre a lot more careful on higher speed roads than lower speed ones.
How many times has a new 20mph limit been followed by someone being run over by a bus?

Hence putting a lower speed limit on a road doesnt always make it safer.
An 80mph limit on motorwyas might be safer than 70
Theyve already realised that road works speed limits can be too low - people pay less attention etc.

It's not as straightforward as you might think
Hence if someone asks for a lower speed limit ' to improve safety' you'll notice it wont happen straight away if at all.