ANPR - Have Your Say
Discussion
Volvolover said:
I still think (know) that ANPR is the smallest of your data worries in reality.
Bank cards. So do you think when you use it in Sainsburys for example they don’t use your card number for any analysis?
You almost certainly carry a mobile phone with iOS or Android....
Forget privacy unless you are very very well informed and have a lot of time on your hands to spend reducing your digital data footprint
And yet we're in a thread because the national ANPR network is asking the question. So why change the topic? Perhaps you don't understand it as well as you think.Bank cards. So do you think when you use it in Sainsburys for example they don’t use your card number for any analysis?
You almost certainly carry a mobile phone with iOS or Android....
Forget privacy unless you are very very well informed and have a lot of time on your hands to spend reducing your digital data footprint
I do actually make continuous efforts to reduce my digital footprint. Most of us should. I accept the horse has bolted in many ways, but simple things like removing your name and home listing from 192.com, ensuring your social media is secure and posting history is tidy. None of it is a requirement of my work, but it is advisable, and also pertinent for anyone that would even consider a role in the public eye in future.
As and when I start a family, I'll be taking steps to ensure I haven't created a digital footprint for my child before they're even aware of it.
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.Also, "you choose to drive, you dont have to" is such an authoritarian and disingenuous comment.
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
I still think (know) that ANPR is the smallest of your data worries in reality.
Bank cards. So do you think when you use it in Sainsburys for example they don’t use your card number for any analysis?
You almost certainly carry a mobile phone with iOS or Android....
Forget privacy unless you are very very well informed and have a lot of time on your hands to spend reducing your digital data footprint
And yet we're in a thread because the national ANPR network is asking the question. So why change the topic? Perhaps you don't understand it as well as you think.Bank cards. So do you think when you use it in Sainsburys for example they don’t use your card number for any analysis?
You almost certainly carry a mobile phone with iOS or Android....
Forget privacy unless you are very very well informed and have a lot of time on your hands to spend reducing your digital data footprint
I do actually make continuous efforts to reduce my digital footprint. Most of us should. I accept the horse has bolted in many ways, but simple things like removing your name and home listing from 192.com, ensuring your social media is secure and posting history is tidy. None of it is a requirement of my work, but it is advisable, and also pertinent for anyone that would even consider a role in the public eye in future.
As and when I start a family, I'll be taking steps to ensure I haven't created a digital footprint for my child before they're even aware of it.
Removing name from 192 and having secure social media is always good but will barely touch the sides of keeping your digital self out of view, I think it’s maybe you who doesn’t understand what data is out there, how it’s used and by whom.
It’s clear from your ideas about keeping private that you have little idea or are playing dumb so I’m out anyway.
Lot of 'yes but you have a mobile/bank card/whatever' arguments here. Our bank cards might track what we spend and where, but not where we went on the way, or who we visited, etc.
Point being, just because some data is already being collected about us, doesn't mean we should give carte blanche for any third party to collect whatever they want.
The fact is (and it is a fact), government haven't always acted in the interests of the people. Government projects haven't always been well implemented. Government members haven't always made all of their money exclusively from government.
A real example I happened across several years ago was insurance companies attempting to buy NHS data. This was prevented at the time (allegedly), but with enough 'innocent' data the same outcomes can be reached. Example: Been to an outpatient clinic several times recently? Visited your doctor in the last twelve months? Not been to a dentist or optician recently? Not been to anywhere associated with fitness? Lots of junk food visits? Up goes your premium.
Now you might say that's fine. What about if you are a staunch anti-<InsertPolicyHere> person who just happens to have visited a strip parlour and then a GUM clinic? Smear campaign anyone?
That's just the tip of the iceberg. The uses of data are not always innocent and there are always far, far more uses than we initially realise. Anonymous data is only anonymous in tiny, isolated chunks. And it can always be used by someone else to profit from you - or silence you - in some way.
Point being, just because some data is already being collected about us, doesn't mean we should give carte blanche for any third party to collect whatever they want.
The fact is (and it is a fact), government haven't always acted in the interests of the people. Government projects haven't always been well implemented. Government members haven't always made all of their money exclusively from government.
A real example I happened across several years ago was insurance companies attempting to buy NHS data. This was prevented at the time (allegedly), but with enough 'innocent' data the same outcomes can be reached. Example: Been to an outpatient clinic several times recently? Visited your doctor in the last twelve months? Not been to a dentist or optician recently? Not been to anywhere associated with fitness? Lots of junk food visits? Up goes your premium.
Now you might say that's fine. What about if you are a staunch anti-<InsertPolicyHere> person who just happens to have visited a strip parlour and then a GUM clinic? Smear campaign anyone?
That's just the tip of the iceberg. The uses of data are not always innocent and there are always far, far more uses than we initially realise. Anonymous data is only anonymous in tiny, isolated chunks. And it can always be used by someone else to profit from you - or silence you - in some way.
saaby93 said:
There's a name for this type of argument where when discussing one thing, someone throws in all sorts of arguments about something else
If you are talking about ‘whataboutery’, the objectors are the ones practicing it.ANPR allows all sorts of ‘good’ things like picking up stolen cars, tax, insurance and MOT dodgers, speeders, etc.
But objectors are saying yes but whatabout if I was a political dissident in a totalitarian future, or I lied about being a non-smoker on an insurance application, it’s a slippery slope, etc.
Volvolover said:
Removing name from 192 and having secure social media is always good but will barely touch the sides of keeping your digital self out of view, I think it’s maybe you who doesn’t understand what data is out there, how it’s used and by whom.
It’s clear from your ideas about keeping private that you have little idea or are playing dumb so I’m out anyway.
Why would I tell you everything I'm doing? That would defeat the point entirely It’s clear from your ideas about keeping private that you have little idea or are playing dumb so I’m out anyway.
Volvolover said:
saaby93 said:
There's a name for this type of argument where when discussing one thing, someone throws in all sorts of arguments about something else
It’s all pretty relevantThe objection to anpr is mainly security of the data and an objection to it being collected and used in the first place
My point is that data more revealing than anpr and with more detailed location analysis is already collected elsewhere in the main so the growing use of ANPR is largely irrelevant especially if you aren’t breaking any laws
How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
cidered77 said:
Volvolover said:
saaby93 said:
There's a name for this type of argument where when discussing one thing, someone throws in all sorts of arguments about something else
It’s all pretty relevantThe objection to anpr is mainly security of the data and an objection to it being collected and used in the first place
My point is that data more revealing than anpr and with more detailed location analysis is already collected elsewhere in the main so the growing use of ANPR is largely irrelevant especially if you aren’t breaking any laws
How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
.
The really interesting stuff (and what I was doing before I stopped working for money) is the output from good predictive analytics systems based on large datasets.
We all think we're clever/special/unique, but we're not, we're monkeys that learned to talk. As a result we are spectacularly predictable on a large scale.
When given enough data about what we *have done*, we can astonishingly accurately predict what we *will do*, and either profit/prevent/gain advantage accordingly.
Banks have been doing simple versions of this for fraud prevention for years, so have supermarkets in terms of store layouts and offers, but there's such a wealth of data out there available off the shelf (and anonymised poorly enough that with two or three such sources, there's no anonymity at all) that privacy for many is already a thing of the past - they just haven't been hit with the costs yet.
We all think we're clever/special/unique, but we're not, we're monkeys that learned to talk. As a result we are spectacularly predictable on a large scale.
When given enough data about what we *have done*, we can astonishingly accurately predict what we *will do*, and either profit/prevent/gain advantage accordingly.
Banks have been doing simple versions of this for fraud prevention for years, so have supermarkets in terms of store layouts and offers, but there's such a wealth of data out there available off the shelf (and anonymised poorly enough that with two or three such sources, there's no anonymity at all) that privacy for many is already a thing of the past - they just haven't been hit with the costs yet.
Baldchap said:
The really interesting stuff (and what I was doing before I stopped working for money) is the output from good predictive analytics systems based on large datasets.
We all think we're clever/special/unique, but we're not, we're monkeys that learned to talk. As a result we are spectacularly predictable on a large scale.
When given enough data about what we *have done*, we can astonishingly accurately predict what we *will do*, and either profit/prevent/gain advantage accordingly.
Banks have been doing simple versions of this for fraud prevention for years, so have supermarkets in terms of store layouts and offers, but there's such a wealth of data out there available off the shelf (and anonymised poorly enough that with two or three such sources, there's no anonymity at all) that privacy for many is already a thing of the past - they just haven't been hit with the costs yet.
Evanivitch has secured his social media accounts though so he’s fully protected.We all think we're clever/special/unique, but we're not, we're monkeys that learned to talk. As a result we are spectacularly predictable on a large scale.
When given enough data about what we *have done*, we can astonishingly accurately predict what we *will do*, and either profit/prevent/gain advantage accordingly.
Banks have been doing simple versions of this for fraud prevention for years, so have supermarkets in terms of store layouts and offers, but there's such a wealth of data out there available off the shelf (and anonymised poorly enough that with two or three such sources, there's no anonymity at all) that privacy for many is already a thing of the past - they just haven't been hit with the costs yet.
I’m still laughing a few hours later
GEllisM4 said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Completed it.
Need ANPR on every corner. That'd work for me.
I bet you're one of these people that believe in the phrase, 'If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about' aren't youNeed ANPR on every corner. That'd work for me.
Edited by GEllisM4 on Thursday 18th February 11:45
Evanivitch said:
And yet we're in a thread because the national ANPR network is asking the question. So why change the topic? Perhaps you don't understand it as well as you think.
I do actually make continuous efforts to reduce my digital footprint. Most of us should. I accept the horse has bolted in many ways, but simple things like removing your name and home listing from 192.com, ensuring your social media is secure and posting history is tidy. None of it is a requirement of my work, but it is advisable, and also pertinent for anyone that would even consider a role in the public eye in future.
As and when I start a family, I'll be taking steps to ensure I haven't created a digital footprint for my child before they're even aware of it.
I don't understand the issue on that front? You cannot be worried about data-mining when you have already used social media and the web. Oh, and 52 nations will already have your passport info I do actually make continuous efforts to reduce my digital footprint. Most of us should. I accept the horse has bolted in many ways, but simple things like removing your name and home listing from 192.com, ensuring your social media is secure and posting history is tidy. None of it is a requirement of my work, but it is advisable, and also pertinent for anyone that would even consider a role in the public eye in future.
As and when I start a family, I'll be taking steps to ensure I haven't created a digital footprint for my child before they're even aware of it.
cidered77 said:
Have to say have a lot of sympathy for this view. Have spent a bit of time with the tech giants, in the west coast as well, and what they know about you is *staggering*.
How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
Can any of the tech giants put me in gaol or fine me, or take any restrictive or punitive actions against me, outwith their own platforms?How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
The government can, and that is the big difference. The government also gets to decide what the rules are, and as we are seeing right now, they are not always what everyone considers to be reasonable, or subject to proper scrutiny.
Look back to recent history; Labour's "children's database" which amongst other things, was intended to flag people according to their risk of committing crimes in the future, based on where they lived, family income etc, so that they could be targeted for "extra measures". There are always people who want to go that step further, for the common good of course. I'm sure the chinese government thinks the same about their social credit score. No thanks. I don't want politicians telling me what good behaviour is.
I’m watching this discussion and thinking that - isn’t the fundamental point that you need n small steps to set up the tools necessary for authoritarian rule, plus the one step of an authoritarian ruler taking power and deciding to act accordingly, for authoritarian hell to take place.
In the past we could have had an authoritarian ruler but we didn’t have the n steps in place for them to enact. But if we now have n-m steps in place then we are not far off a situation where there a n steps on place and we’re only left with the one step (of an authoritarian taking power) for authoritarian hell to take place.
In the past we could have had an authoritarian ruler but we didn’t have the n steps in place for them to enact. But if we now have n-m steps in place then we are not far off a situation where there a n steps on place and we’re only left with the one step (of an authoritarian taking power) for authoritarian hell to take place.
BurtonLazars said:
I’m watching this discussion and thinking that - isn’t the fundamental point that you need n small steps to set up the tools necessary for authoritarian rule, plus the one step of an authoritarian ruler taking power and deciding to act accordingly, for authoritarian hell to take place.
In the past we could have had an authoritarian ruler but we didn’t have the n steps in place for them to enact. But if we now have n-m steps in place then we are not far off a situation where there a n steps on place and we’re only left with the one step (of an authoritarian taking power) for authoritarian hell to take place.
You are correct, to a point.In the past we could have had an authoritarian ruler but we didn’t have the n steps in place for them to enact. But if we now have n-m steps in place then we are not far off a situation where there a n steps on place and we’re only left with the one step (of an authoritarian taking power) for authoritarian hell to take place.
That point being that your argument only considers one side. Yes, greater surveillance and tracking could indeed be considered to be stepping stones on the way to authoritarian rule, and yes, they could be abused by a malign government.
But the flip side is that crime rates are down. People are safer. CCTV is a great tool for after-the-event solving of crimes, and to an extent reduce crime overall both by acting as a deterrent, and by taking people off the street who would otherwise commit more crimes.
People can actually do more things; my smartphone makes my life better simply by being able to tell other systems where I am and what I'm doing. Basic things like sat-nav or proactively telling me what the train times are at my nearest station might be small, but collectively they genuinely make a difference to our lives.
So it's not a one-sided equation. Yes, bad things might happen. But good things definitely already do.
CrutyRammers said:
cidered77 said:
Have to say have a lot of sympathy for this view. Have spent a bit of time with the tech giants, in the west coast as well, and what they know about you is *staggering*.
How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
Can any of the tech giants put me in gaol or fine me, or take any restrictive or punitive actions against me, outwith their own platforms?How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
The government can,
deckster said:
So it's not a one-sided equation. Yes, bad things might happen. But good things definitely already do.
Yes, I agree. I should have stated that I was trying to make the alternate case (only), as the “but these powers are used for good” argument has already been so well made.CrutyRammers said:
cidered77 said:
Have to say have a lot of sympathy for this view. Have spent a bit of time with the tech giants, in the west coast as well, and what they know about you is *staggering*.
How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
Can any of the tech giants put me in gaol or fine me, or take any restrictive or punitive actions against me, outwith their own platforms?How many people vehemently against increased APRN surveillance click through the 14,700 words of Facebook Ts & Cs, or the 13k words Google puts up, and then just click "accept"? You'll get the off holier-than-thou who reckons they use the local hardware shop not Amazon, but let's honest: 99.9% of the population give away huge amounts of data every day, and are barely aware of it.
I should probably care more about increased surveillance, but i just don't. I tax and insure my cars, i don't speed in town; i wouldn't have an issue to be honest; i'd even register my DNA if asked - imagine how much more simple identifying crime would be if everyone did that .
Am sure that position would horrify many, but i just see upsides, and the downsides either don't apply to me, or i see as wildly theoroetical...
The government can, and that is the big difference. The government also gets to decide what the rules are, and as we are seeing right now, they are not always what everyone considers to be reasonable, or subject to proper scrutiny.
Look back to recent history; Labour's "children's database" which amongst other things, was intended to flag people according to their risk of committing crimes in the future, based on where they lived, family income etc, so that they could be targeted for "extra measures". There are always people who want to go that step further, for the common good of course. I'm sure the chinese government thinks the same about their social credit score. No thanks. I don't want politicians telling me what good behaviour is.
It's like fox hunting.. or going vegan to save the planet, or language used sensitivity for transgender people... all topics if i really thought about, i am sure i'd come along to the conclusion of yeah that's bad / yeah should probably do that / yeah need to be bit more aware here...but in truth, on all 3 i just don't give enough of **** to give too much thought .Too many other things to worry about frankly.
Saying that, 5 years ago the prospect of the leader of the free world turning 20-30m people directly away from democracy would have sounded impossible... so maybe i should join Team Angry Man after all eh
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff