ANPR - Have Your Say
Discussion
PiesAreGreat said:
In the UK we apparently the most watched nation on earth, I don't like this even though I am law abiding!
In regard of speed cameras I don't really have an issue, I obey the limits and generally the car speedometers read low, most police forces are quite reasonable and give you a few mph margin.
ANPR, I pay VED/Roadtax, whilst I think it should just be put straight onto the price of fuel (polluter pays and all that). If someone doesn't pay tax and insurance, I would be fine with them having cameras to catch them, the big problem is the number of cars with cloned plates, so they can do what they like on the roads with no consequence unless they drive like an idiot and so get pulled over.
If two cars with matching plates are pinged in different parts of the Country at broadly the same time I would have assumed it would be quite easy for ANPR to flag this up?In regard of speed cameras I don't really have an issue, I obey the limits and generally the car speedometers read low, most police forces are quite reasonable and give you a few mph margin.
ANPR, I pay VED/Roadtax, whilst I think it should just be put straight onto the price of fuel (polluter pays and all that). If someone doesn't pay tax and insurance, I would be fine with them having cameras to catch them, the big problem is the number of cars with cloned plates, so they can do what they like on the roads with no consequence unless they drive like an idiot and so get pulled over.
Basically you've got more chance of catching the scrotes with ANPR than without.
Countdown said:
PiesAreGreat said:
In the UK we apparently the most watched nation on earth, I don't like this even though I am law abiding!
In regard of speed cameras I don't really have an issue, I obey the limits and generally the car speedometers read low, most police forces are quite reasonable and give you a few mph margin.
ANPR, I pay VED/Roadtax, whilst I think it should just be put straight onto the price of fuel (polluter pays and all that). If someone doesn't pay tax and insurance, I would be fine with them having cameras to catch them, the big problem is the number of cars with cloned plates, so they can do what they like on the roads with no consequence unless they drive like an idiot and so get pulled over.
If two cars with matching plates are pinged in different parts of the Country at broadly the same time I would have assumed it would be quite easy for ANPR to flag this up?In regard of speed cameras I don't really have an issue, I obey the limits and generally the car speedometers read low, most police forces are quite reasonable and give you a few mph margin.
ANPR, I pay VED/Roadtax, whilst I think it should just be put straight onto the price of fuel (polluter pays and all that). If someone doesn't pay tax and insurance, I would be fine with them having cameras to catch them, the big problem is the number of cars with cloned plates, so they can do what they like on the roads with no consequence unless they drive like an idiot and so get pulled over.
Basically you've got more chance of catching the scrotes with ANPR than without.
Currently i'd say ANPR just logs a registration and location then stores it and checks it against a known set of fairly static data, ie tax, insurance, MOT, registered keeper details, endorsements for that keeper, linked individuals from police systems and things like NOMIS
Countdown said:
CrutyRammers said:
Given history, it seems highly likely that power gets abused, to the detriment of people.
Which powers do you think have been abused?We shouldn't assume a desire for privacy is connected with wrongdoing; we all draw our curtains at night but very few of us are beating the wife or setting-up a meth lab.
Edited by AmyRichardson on Friday 19th February 11:09
AmyRichardson said:
Go and have a meander through the varied application of the RIPA; this is a good example of how the police, and other authorities, creatively 'max out' (and occasionally exceed legal bounds) the possibilities of the physical and statutory tools afforded to them. They always want more and sooner or later there will be a Home Secretary whose is either happy to or politically obliged to acquiesce; observe the depth of knowledge the state had of the private individual as little as 50 years ago and compare it today, it's a trend that only runs one way.
The fact that we have things like RIPA in the first place provides me with reassurance that the necessary checks and controls will always be in placeAmyRichardson said:
We shouldn't assume a desire for privacy is connected with wrongdoing; we all draw our curtains at night but very few of us are beating the wife or setting-up a meth lab.
There's a huge difference between ANPR in public and somebody snooping into your house at night.The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
Indeed, it's a highly regulated activity (due to safety concerns) conducted on state infrastructure. It's therefore very dissimilar to other free market activity. The privacy concerns are infinitesimally small compared to that of say internet ad-tracking or social media.Edited by Olivera on Friday 19th February 12:14
Has anyone mentioned that the people this is designed to catch, will simply find ways to avoid detection?
Of course, it may catch people who 'accidentally' have no insurance, tax etc. (people can and do make genuine mistakes) - however, the more deliberate law breakers will simply evade the system somehow.
Of course, it may catch people who 'accidentally' have no insurance, tax etc. (people can and do make genuine mistakes) - however, the more deliberate law breakers will simply evade the system somehow.
StuE39 said:
Has anyone mentioned that the people this is designed to catch, will simply find ways to avoid detection?
Of course, it may catch people who 'accidentally' have no insurance, tax etc. (people can and do make genuine mistakes) - however, the more deliberate law breakers will simply evade the system somehow.
That's what criminals do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make things harder for them.Of course, it may catch people who 'accidentally' have no insurance, tax etc. (people can and do make genuine mistakes) - however, the more deliberate law breakers will simply evade the system somehow.
I'm not sure why people would "accidentally" forget to have no tax/insurance however knowing there's a higher likelihood of being caught and fined might help to focus their minds?
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
But I know that you know that ANPR takes photographs of drivers' faces.The issue is the cumulative erosion of privacy and ultimately liberty, that comes from increased observation/recording and the inevitable mission creep that new facilities always bring. It is where it ends up that matters, and where this ends up we do not want to be. At some juncture, government will want us to be there and we have to realise who is beholding to whom.
Authoritarian 'If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear' types will sleep walk us into a society where our personal freedoms are eroded to such a degree that we will be living in a Philip K Dick novel.
944 Man said:
vonhosen said:
The VRM is the state's property for it's management of a heavily regulated activity. If you want to engage in the heavily regulated activity then it's on the proviso that you comply with the regulations, otherwise you aren't permitted to engage in it. The state are not recording the individual who is driving, it could be any number of people driving the vehicle, they are recording their property, the plate.
But I know that you know that ANPR takes photographs of drivers' faces.The issue is the cumulative erosion of privacy and ultimately liberty, that comes from increased observation/recording and the inevitable mission creep that new facilities always bring. It is where it ends up that matters, and where this ends up we do not want to be. At some juncture, government will want us to be there and we have to realise who is beholding to whom.
Authoritarian 'If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear' types will sleep walk us into a society where our personal freedoms are eroded to such a degree that we will be living in a Philip K Dick novel.
The VRM is what is being observed & recorded. It may or may not capture the driver's face in that image, but it's not searching for that, not definitely recording that, or indexing that. A lot are rear facing after all. As I said anyone could be driving, and the driver could quite legally be wearing a face mask, in fact wearing a face mask is positively encouraged at the moment. So it is not logging the movements of identifiable individuals, it's all about the VRM which belongs to the state anyway.
If the state wants to know who was driving then they haven't got the ANPR for that, that's why they need to send out a notice to the registered keeper, who may not be the driver, in order to identify the driver for certain road traffic offences.
Countdown said:
CrutyRammers said:
Given history, it seems highly likely that power gets abused, to the detriment of people.
Which powers do you think have been abused?RIPA. Many examples.
The current Coronavirus Regs. As we have all seen, reported in the media, and in many pubilc cases accepted by those who abused them, who have issued apologies.
No "think" about it.
Countdown said:
StuE39 said:
Has anyone mentioned that the people this is designed to catch, will simply find ways to avoid detection?
Of course, it may catch people who 'accidentally' have no insurance, tax etc. (people can and do make genuine mistakes) - however, the more deliberate law breakers will simply evade the system somehow.
That's what criminals do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make things harder for them.Of course, it may catch people who 'accidentally' have no insurance, tax etc. (people can and do make genuine mistakes) - however, the more deliberate law breakers will simply evade the system somehow.
I'm not sure why people would "accidentally" forget to have no tax/insurance however knowing there's a higher likelihood of being caught and fined might help to focus their minds?
A more "human factors" way would make things easy for people. Say, put the cost of VED and 3rd party insurance on the cost of petrol, then no-one can avoid it and everyone's automatically covered.
But then you wouldn't get to PUNISH THEM for not doing some paperwork.
CrutyRammers said:
The original National Registration Act 1939. Don't take my word for it, see the findings of the courts, and the fact that parliament agreed with them and repealed it.
Perhaps you could elaborate? Google suggests that the Act was introduced at the beginning of WW2, and repealed in 1952 when it was no longer required. I can't find anything to suggest it was being misused, or anything to suggest it was repealed BECAUSE it was being misused.If what you are saying is true and it was repealed because it was being misused that would actually strengthen the argument that there are safeguards in place which would take action in the event of any misuse. In fact, isn't that the entire point of RIPA?
Countdown said:
AmyRichardson said:
Go and have a meander through the varied application of the RIPA; this is a good example of how the police, and other authorities, creatively 'max out' (and occasionally exceed legal bounds) the possibilities of the physical and statutory tools afforded to them. They always want more and sooner or later there will be a Home Secretary whose is either happy to or politically obliged to acquiesce; observe the depth of knowledge the state had of the private individual as little as 50 years ago and compare it today, it's a trend that only runs one way.
The fact that we have things like RIPA in the first place provides me with reassurance that the necessary checks and controls will always be in placeThe question was whether there was an example of the authorities being afforded a surveillance tool which they then expanded in scope-of-use to the point that the tool as being utilised beyond the original proposed intent. This was just such an example. It's also a decent example of extending powers to the authorities which previous generations of legislators wouldn't have countenanced in peacetime.
AmyRichardson said:
We shouldn't assume a desire for privacy is connected with wrongdoing; we all draw our curtains at night but very few of us are beating the wife or setting-up a meth lab.
There's a huge difference between ANPR in public and somebody snooping into your house at night.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff