ANPR - Have Your Say

[Cold]

Countdown said:

MyV10BarksAndBites said:

Cold said:

You were 7.5 miles from your home. Here's a covid fine.

They will never get it!!!

The Submississive and emasculated English men!!!

So sad.....

Making up ridiculous scenarios doesn't really prove your case.

Yep, you're right. The police have no recorded instances of ever overstepping their powers so such a thought is nonsense.

[Evanivitch]

deckster said:

What I take exception to though is the assertion by some on this thread that somehow we are not free; that we are unable to go about our lives without interference from the state, or in some way prohibited from carrying out activities. That, I would contend, is patent nonsense.

The erosion of civil liberties is often a slow process. But it's also a constantly evolving discussion and one which needs to be reviewed within the current and future context.

So for example, having an ANPR network around the country with locations not shared with the public may not seem an issue. However, it also means we have no data on the quantity or density of those cameras. So installation could continue upto a point where there's one at the end of each street. Still, pretty innocent. But then it only takes a very small change in the written law to switch that infrastructure from a passive crime-fighting device to a system designed to oppress freedom of movement.

The Police position is that ANPR locations being public would undermine their abilities. And yet a fake number plate or a piece of tape already does that...

[Stick Legs]

Replied to the survey in a broadly positive manner.

Someone I know was raped at a party, the rapist left the house and she reported the attack.
The Police investigation was sympathetic and well conducted from what we heard.
His entire defence was centred on the fact that the sex was consensual and that he left the party much much earlier and therefore the attack element happened after.

His car registration details were handed to the Police at the time by another guest at the house.

His sworn testimony and that of a 'mate' was that they had been out in the car at the time of the attack, this created sufficient doubt that it was not a successful prosecution.

ANPR would have placed his location and would have undoubtedly resulted in a prosecution.
Fear of blanket ANPR would have probably resulted in him not trying to lie to the court.

Civil liberties campaigners are quick to cry for the freedom from surveillance but what of the freedom to go about your life un-molested safe in the knowledge that the Police have all the tools they need to prosecute someone who wrongs you.

As an aside:
I like to drive fast. I's fun.
I am aware that that one day this will be impossible.
My right to have fun does not trump the fact that what I consider fun is illegal and has been for ages.
The entire point of society is we as a group broadly agree on standards of behaviour and then rely on agencies such as the Police to sanction those who transgress societal norms.
Maybe if we did end up with total speed surveillance then the NSL would get raised as the usual argument that people do 85 in a 70 limit wouldn't hold sway, plus the rise of EV's means it would be environmentally less of an issue.

[bigothunter]

Stick Legs said:

Maybe if we did end up with total speed surveillance then the NSL would get raised as the usual argument that people do 85 in a 70 limit wouldn't hold sway, plus the rise of EV's means it would be environmentally less of an issue.

Only hope for raising NSL is total autonomous control (Level 5). Muppet drivers cannot cope above 70mph or less in some cases. Eventually I suspect cars with real drivers, will be limited to 50mph even on motorways.

[SturdyHSV]

Evanivitch said:

2 points really.

Firstly, we all have personal information. DNA and fingerprints are a good example. If you've done nothing wrong and you intend to do nothing wrong, why not volunteer your DNA/fingerprints for permanent record with the Police? It wouldn't effect your day to day.

I'd happily do this, so I'm clearly missing something.

Evanivitch said:

What I do have an issue is widespread recording of everyone's movements, and holding that data for 12 months. Too broad, too long.

Why?

Let's assume for the benefit of your argument that everyone in the country has a magical black box communications device sewn into them from birth so their movements can be logged for all time, or stored for a year.

Is it the resulting black and white nature of certain offences that is your concern? So for example trespassing or speeding, you went over the speed limit or you went inside the wrong zone, instant fine? (Ignoring the sheer bandwidth / processing / storage required for this level of monitoring as let's just assume technology will always eventually catch up and make anything possible.)

Is it the vulnerability of such a system to nefarious third parties meaning you could, for example, be robbed when your house was empty because they'd know where you were?

Is it the selling of this information to advertisers so they could better target adverts based on where you've been or people you know have been?

Is it the obscene cost of maintaining such a system and the fact it'd be Government run meaning it'd doubtless cost trillions every year and wouldn't work properly and would be 7 years late and then need replacement 3 months later?

I'm just trying to understand why you take issue with it. I'm not accusing you or suggesting you're wrong for being concerned at all, I just wish to gain your insight so that I can make a more informed judgement of my own.

Part of my viewpoint is that with the amount of data being collected, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, yes, someone (police or hacker, whatever) could retrospectively go back and uncover vast amounts of very 'personal' information, tracking movements etc. etc. but you or I specifically would have to be a person of interest in order for this process to take place?

Something would have to trigger this investigation in to you or I individually because there would simply be too much data for the information to be anything other than effectively anonymous, until the individual is identified as of interest?

Yes they'd be tracking you everywhere, but they'd be tracking everyone everywhere (although as has been covered ironically probably not actual criminals who would seek to avoid the system), why would you stand out and merit any actual attention? Unless it's perhaps the automated thing like I mentioned earlier.

As I say, I'm just trying to better understand as I trust that the numerous people that feel very differently to me on this have their own personal evidence and experiences that create their viewpoint, just like I do.

As a minor aside, speaking as someone who has written the software behind and supplied ANPR journey time systems to councils, it would be a novel idea for them to allow a neighbouring council to 'use' the data from a camera near the county border, so there would have to be some remarkable changes to implement the sort of countrywide sharing of information being discussed.

Also, the plates from every camera are not being compared to the plates from every other camera in the country. That would be an absolutely obscenely stupid waste of time, and processing, and given the way the matching is done it would also somewhat fall apart anyway.

EDIT:

I missed your later reply whilst typing the above waffle, so if your concern is one of how the purpose of the system could change in the future to oppress freedom of movement (as an example) could you elaborate further on that? I'm sure you're aware of how that sort of a change would have to be passed in to actual law and how the voting public etc. would be aware of it, naturally I'm aware of how stupid the voting public are capable of being and how easily manipulated etc., again I'm just seeking to understand better your point of view, cheers.

Edited by SturdyHSV on Wednesday 17th February 12:53

[Biggy Stardust]

Evanivitch said:

2 points really.

Firstly, we all have personal information. DNA and fingerprints are a good example. If you've done nothing wrong and you intend to do nothing wrong, why not volunteer your DNA/fingerprints for permanent record with the Police? It wouldn't effect your day to day.

But just like I don't have an issue with the police taking DNA and finger prints of suspects and then disposing of it accordingly, I don't have a problem with ANPR data of suspects and being held and disposed of accordingly.

What I do have an issue is widespread recording of everyone's movements, and holding that data for 12 months. Too broad, too long.

‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.
I believe the innocent have everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like ‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.
Has legislation ever been abused? From RIPA to police threatening arrest if a family doesn't go indoors from their front garden to other police wanting to inspect grocery bags? Tell me honestly that ANPR information will never be abused, sold to commercial operations, etc. When the authorities have repeatedly abused a position of power it's not entirely paranoid to suppose that they might do the same in future, especially if systems are in place which make such abuse easier to perpetrate.

[deckster]

Biggy Stardust said:

‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.
I believe the innocent have everything to fear, mostly from the guilty

You've perhaps inadvertently made a point that I was struggling to articulate earlier on.

The vast majority of people have had their lives made better by advances in technology, surveillance, and intelligence. Yes, there is a risk of a malign government abusing data, victimising people, and using this data to oppress the population. This is, indeed, possible.

But for most, this risk is far outweighed by the benign uses of this kind of tech. In tracking the bad guys. In stopping them before they can do bad things. In making our everyday lives actually, genuinely, measurably, more safe.

I know somebody has already trotted out the tired old trope about "those who trade liberty for security deserve neither." But, aside of whether something said by Benjamin Franklin couple of hundred years ago regarding a tax dispute is at all relevant to today's society, even as a principle it's dubious. Taken to its extreme, we could just get rid of all laws, as they by definition restrict individual liberty in pursuit of safety and maintainability of society. Of course I'm not trying to imply that anybody has suggested that - but the point is that this isn't a black-and-white, liberty versus security argument. This isn't a zero-sum game. We can (and we do) increase all our security without actually impacting our liberty at all, in any meaningful sense.

[bigothunter]

deckster said:

Biggy Stardust said:

‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.
I believe the innocent have everything to fear, mostly from the guilty

You've perhaps inadvertently made a point that I was struggling to articulate earlier on.

Biggy Stardust said:

‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.
I believe the innocent have everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like ‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.

Partial quotes can change the emphasis and be misleading

[Countdown]

Cold said:

Countdown said:

MyV10BarksAndBites said:

Cold said:

You were 7.5 miles from your home. Here's a covid fine.

They will never get it!!!

The Submississive and emasculated English men!!!

So sad.....

Making up ridiculous scenarios doesn't really prove your case.

Yep, you're right. The police have no recorded instances of ever overstepping their powers so such a thought is nonsense.

There are recorded instances of people being hit/killed by lightning but I'm not going to walk everywhere wearing rubber shoes.

[Evanivitch]

SturdyHSV said:

Evanivitch said:

2 points really.

Firstly, we all have personal information. DNA and fingerprints are a good example. If you've done nothing wrong and you intend to do nothing wrong, why not volunteer your DNA/fingerprints for permanent record with the Police? It wouldn't effect your day to day.

I'd happily do this, so I'm clearly missing something.

Then you trust the police and those working with the police absolutely to protect your data and use it only as intended, at the time you provided it.

But if they ever change how they intended to use it (as they could in 10-60 years), or they lose control of that data, you don't expect to be able to remove that information nor can you apply for replacement data.

SturdyHSV said:

Is it the vulnerability of such a system to nefarious third parties meaning you could, for example, be robbed when your house was empty because they'd know where you were?

Partly. As well as who I was with at the time. Or wasn't.

SturdyHSV said:

Is it the selling of this information to advertisers so they could better target adverts based on where you've been or people you know have been?

Less of a concern.

SturdyHSV said:

Is it the obscene cost of maintaining such a system and the fact it'd be Government run meaning it'd doubtless cost trillions every year and wouldn't work properly and would be 7 years late and then need replacement 3 months later?

I'm just trying to understand why you take issue with it. I'm not accusing you or suggesting you're wrong for being concerned at all, I just wish to gain your insight so that I can make a more informed judgement of my own.

Part of my viewpoint is that with the amount of data being collected, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, yes, someone (police or hacker, whatever) could retrospectively go back and uncover vast amounts of very 'personal' information, tracking movements etc. etc. but you or I specifically would have to be a person of interest in order for this process to take place?

The database would be in a constant arms race with external hackers but also preventing internal abuse of the system.

People of interest aren't all rich, celebrities or politicians. They are people with information and access that can be blackmailed providing access into other systems.

A complete tracker would mean knowledge of where everyone lives, works, who they meet and when. Now none of that is hard data these days for an individual, but the point is a single database provides all that information for analysis.

So with a few lines of code I know who's having an affair, their office hours, when their home is empty, when they're isolated from others, when they're acting outside of the normal, trends on people they've met.

But importantly, I can trawl that across the entire population, I don't have to look at each individual. Suddenly I find people that are open to blackmail, political rivals, organised protestors, those that simply choose not to be in society. All placed into massive data pots.

SturdyHSV said:

As a minor aside, speaking as someone who has written the software behind and supplied ANPR journey time systems to councils, it would be a novel idea for them to allow a neighbouring council to 'use' the data from a camera near the county border, so there would have to be some remarkable changes to implement the sort of countrywide sharing of information being discussed.

Also, the plates from every camera are not being compared to the plates from every other camera in the country. That would be an absolutely obscenely stupid waste of time, and processing, and given the way the matching is done it would also somewhat fall apart anyway.

And I've worked in big data, pattern of life style projects briefly. It's really not a processing burden.

[Cold]

Countdown said:

Cold said:

Countdown said:

MyV10BarksAndBites said:

Cold said:

You were 7.5 miles from your home. Here's a covid fine.

They will never get it!!!

The Submississive and emasculated English men!!!

So sad.....

Making up ridiculous scenarios doesn't really prove your case.

Yep, you're right. The police have no recorded instances of ever overstepping their powers so such a thought is nonsense.

There are recorded instances of people being hit/killed by lightning but I'm not going to walk everywhere wearing rubber shoes.

Would ANPR or extra legislation have helped those people not to be hit by lightning? Or are you just making up ridiculous scenarios?

[Countdown]

Cold said:

Would ANPR or extra legislation have helped those people not to be hit by lightning? Or are you just making up ridiculous scenarios?

The lightning was a metaphor for the likelihood of Police using ANPR data illegally - to use it as some kind of reason for not implementing ANPR is ridiculous.

[SturdyHSV]

Firstly, really appreciate the effort in responding to all that, I shall return the courtesy

Evanivitch said:

Then you trust the police and those working with the police absolutely to protect your data and use it only as intended, at the time you provided it.

But if they ever change how they intended to use it (as they could in 10-60 years), or they lose control of that data, you don't expect to be able to remove that information nor can you apply for replacement data.

There's definitely an issue with regards to trusting the protection of it simply because, as you allude to later, the arms race with hackers. Thinking of very long term, I can certainly see how having the ability to access DNA records and thus fabricate DNA evidence perhaps or at least blackmail associated with this.

Evanivitch said:

Partly. As well as who I was with at the time. Or wasn't.

I had made the assumption that deducing affairs (of the extra-marital kind) would be an easy use of the data, but I sort of filed this under the idea of if someone is 'innocent' (in the unrealistic absolute sense) then they wouldn't be having the affair etc.

Evanivitch said:

Less of a concern.

We're going to get ads anyway, they might as well be relevant

Evanivitch said:

The database would be in a constant arms race with external hackers but also preventing internal abuse of the system.

People of interest aren't all rich, celebrities or politicians. They are people with information and access that can be blackmailed providing access into other systems.

A complete tracker would mean knowledge of where everyone lives, works, who they meet and when. Now none of that is hard data these days for an individual, but the point is a single database provides all that information for analysis.

So with a few lines of code I know who's having an affair, their office hours, when their home is empty, when they're isolated from others, when they're acting outside of the normal, trends on people they've met.

But importantly, I can trawl that across the entire population, I don't have to look at each individual. Suddenly I find people that are open to blackmail, political rivals, organised protestors, those that simply choose not to be in society. All placed into massive data pots.

Agreed it is far more dangerous being a centralised system due to the ability to use it to find suitable candidates for whatever malicious purpose, and as we've established once you're a person of interest the fact this stuff would all be tracked means everything is then on the table.

Evanivitch said:

And I've worked in big data, pattern of life style projects briefly. It's really not a processing burden.

Oh quite, apologies my aside was merely an attempt to be a little on topic with regards to the ANPR functions being discussed earlier such as getting a speeding ticket for travelling at the speed of sound or having fake plates be picked up because the car is in York and Cornwall at the same time etc. it was by no means an attempted willy waving on data analysis

I'm aware enough of the ease with which this sort of data could be used to both track and profile an individual, and also to identify individuals (in pattern terms) in order for them to be then exhaustively investigated. I suppose the key point to my relative ambivalence rests mostly upon this matter of being identified as an individual worthy of attention.

I suppose I see a relative safety in anonymity by volume, I don't stand out, if I fit a profile of a certain type of character then fair enough, I do, if I have been somewhere I shouldn't have been or been with someone I shouldn't have been, then I am accountable for it and I don't see it as unfair if I ended up being selected for blackmailing (as an example), it would be a result of my chosen actions, and realistically blackmail relies on you not wanting the information to get out, whereas I would rather deal with said information getting out (whatever it could be) than whatever the ridiculous blackmailing demands were.

Also, if everyone is so exposed as this, because the information is hackable and no doubt eventually someone has conveniently written an app to make it available to all, then are we not just going to end up in a more liberal time anyway?

If all this information is freely available (to hackers) or so regularly exposed etc. then wouldn't the very things that society holds as 'private' no longer be held so privately? If it turns out 70% of people are having affairs all the time, then presumably either society will adapt to this new information and it will no longer be that exciting, or it'll turn out only 2% of people are having affairs and they'll be exposed and it'll perhaps stop, or will provide more incentive not to?

Naturally I'm exaggerating / picking simplistic single ideas to illustrate my (somewhat vague) point, but I think if part of your concerns are with how something may change in 20 years (or 10-60 years), then those concerns should be accompanied by the knowledge that there'll no doubt be a vast amount of other change in that time period, some related, some totally unexpected, that may completely alter the relevance of those concerns?

This is frustrating as I feel like this would be an excellent chat to have in person and having to type endless drivel online reduces it far too much. Oh well, I shall remain unquestioningly locked in my house as the Government have decreed

[Evanivitch]

SturdyHSV said:

I had made the assumption that deducing affairs (of the extra-marital kind) would be an easy use of the data, but I sort of filed this under the idea of if someone is 'innocent' (in the unrealistic absolute sense) then they wouldn't be having the affair etc.

But an affair isn't a crime. So it feeds quite nicely into the "I don't intend to break the law" acceptance of intrusion. But an affair that wasn't public would be a reason to refuse you a job (certainly security clearance).

SturdyHSV said:

I suppose I see a relative safety in anonymity by volume, I don't stand out, if I fit a profile of a certain type of character then fair enough, I do, if I have been somewhere I shouldn't have been or been with someone I shouldn't have been, then I am accountable for it and I don't see it as unfair if I ended up being selected for blackmailing (as an example), it would be a result of my chosen actions, and realistically blackmail relies on you not wanting the information to get out, whereas I would rather deal with said information getting out (whatever it could be) than whatever the ridiculous blackmailing demands were.

Anonymity isn't absolute. It's really only a threshold. I can be anonymous on a forum, but if I post a picture of my house that's not hard to find my identity. I could be in witness protection, but somewhere the data trail is there that links my new and old identity. It's a question of effort required to join the dots.

As I alluded to earlier, a single database containing so much information means none of us are anonymous because it's simple to join the dots, quickly and effectively.

A more tangible way is to look at CCTV then and now. 10 years ago a manual operator looking at a sea of faces. Anonymous. Today, cross checking all those faces against wanted databases. Could be driving licence database in future. Suddenly they have name, address, DOB and away we go.

SturdyHSV said:

Also, if everyone is so exposed as this, because the information is hackable and no doubt eventually someone has conveniently written an app to make it available to all, then are we not just going to end up in a more liberal time anyway?

If all this information is freely available (to hackers) or so regularly exposed etc. then wouldn't the very things that society holds as 'private' no longer be held so privately? If it turns out 70% of people are having affairs all the time, then presumably either society will adapt to this new information and it will no longer be that exciting, or it'll turn out only 2% of people are having affairs and they'll be exposed and it'll perhaps stop, or will provide more incentive not to?

Naturally I'm exaggerating / picking simplistic single ideas to illustrate my (somewhat vague) point, but I think if part of your concerns are with how something may change in 20 years (or 10-60 years), then those concerns should be accompanied by the knowledge that there'll no doubt be a vast amount of other change in that time period, some related, some totally unexpected, that may completely alter the relevance of those concerns?

This is frustrating as I feel like this would be an excellent chat to have in person and having to type endless drivel online reduces it far too much. Oh well, I shall remain unquestioningly locked in my house as the Government have decreed

Home behaviour doesn't change, it adapts. Infidelity will still happen, but there'll be an arms race to defeat the technology. And so it will continue to evolve and, perhaps, become more intrusive.

Like I said, it's a slow erosion, it won't happen overnight.

[Volvolover]

So the concerns are around the security of the data not the principle of collecting it for the interested reasons then in the main.


Also you guys are really hitting ANPR hard when really the data held by the like of Amazon and social media sites and the mobile phone companies utterly dwarfs what you’d get out of ANPR systems

[Evanivitch]

Volvolover said:

So the concerns are around the security of the data not the principle of collecting it for the interested reasons then in the main.

No, that was just a wider discussion on government holding personal data.

IMO, ANPR should be checking against a suspects list and locations should be publicly declared. It should not be harvesting everyone's data for 12 months at undisclosed camera locations.

Volvolover said:

Also you guys are really hitting ANPR hard when really the data held by the like of Amazon and social media sites and the mobile phone companies utterly dwarfs what you’d get out of ANPR systems

Only if I choose to use their services. Which is a choice. They're also subject to GDPR legislation. ANPR data is, but only loosely.

[SturdyHSV]

Evanivitch said:

But an affair isn't a crime. So it feeds quite nicely into the "I don't intend to break the law" acceptance of intrusion. But an affair that wasn't public would be a reason to refuse you a job (certainly security clearance).

Job refusal is an interesting one, although if they have a reason to not want people with undisclosed blackmailable histories, isn't it a good thing that said person is refused the job? Isn't that the point? It sucks for the person, but it's better for society as the squeaky clean person they do hire is more suitable? Or blackmail is so common that it's not a particularly special circumstance any more?

Evanivitch said:

Anonymity isn't absolute. It's really only a threshold. I can be anonymous on a forum, but if I post a picture of my house that's not hard to find my identity. I could be in witness protection, but somewhere the data trail is there that links my new and old identity. It's a question of effort required to join the dots.

As I alluded to earlier, a single database containing so much information means none of us are anonymous because it's simple to join the dots, quickly and effectively.

A more tangible way is to look at CCTV then and now. 10 years ago a manual operator looking at a sea of faces. Anonymous. Today, cross checking all those faces against wanted databases. Could be driving licence database in future. Suddenly they have name, address, DOB and away we go.

Witness protection is an excellent example in terms of hacked information being very dangerous in the wrong hands, and certainly that's a scenario that someone could totally innocently end up in which the theoretical level of surveillance we're discussing could then expose to risk.

Evanivitch said:

Home behaviour doesn't change, it adapts. Infidelity will still happen, but there'll be an arms race to defeat the technology. And so it will continue to evolve and, perhaps, become more intrusive.

Like I said, it's a slow erosion, it won't happen overnight.

I'm on board with the idea that all the information in one system is dangerous in the wrong hands, and whether you trust the authorities or not, we can assume hackers will gain access because they just will at some point.

I'd argue that despite the Government likely losing a hacking arms race, they'd likely at least lose to a reasonably adept (and thus money focused) rival so their likely targets still wouldn't be Joe Sixpack on the street lieing to his boss about whether he's hungover etc.

I guess I just still don't make the connection between the data being connected and then society being put under curfew or what have you. I appreciate that's very much what is being done currently, and it could all be a big hoax deliberately constructed by 'them' to control the population, but I just don't see the Government as being that evil.

Inept at times, yes, no doubt corruptible for money, but I struggle to make the full dystopian leap. I accept that could well be proven to be naively positive however, I guess we'll have to see, although doubtless PH will be censored and shut down long before it goes full house arrest so sadly the "I told you so" post will have to be sent in a more imaginative way.

[vonhosen]

Evanivitch said:

Volvolover said:

So the concerns are around the security of the data not the principle of collecting it for the interested reasons then in the main.

No, that was just a wider discussion on government holding personal data.

IMO, ANPR should be checking against a suspects list and locations should be publicly declared. It should not be harvesting everyone's data for 12 months at undisclosed camera locations.

Volvolover said:

Also you guys are really hitting ANPR hard when really the data held by the like of Amazon and social media sites and the mobile phone companies utterly dwarfs what you’d get out of ANPR systems

Only if I choose to use their services. Which is a choice. They're also subject to GDPR legislation. ANPR data is, but only loosely.

You choose to use a car, you don't have to.

[Evanivitch]

vonhosen said:

You choose to use a car, you don't have to.

Fair point, it's a privilege, therefore let's put GPS tracking on everyone's cars 24/7 and just end the debate there.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Evanivitch said:

vonhosen said:

You choose to use a car, you don't have to.

Fair point, it's a privilege, therefore let's put GPS tracking on everyone's cars 24/7 and just end the debate there.

It's coming, with speed limiters relative to the limit of the road.