ANPR - Have Your Say

ANPR - Have Your Say

Author
Discussion

vonhosen

37,267 posts

181 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.

Evanivitch

8,793 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.

vonhosen

37,267 posts

181 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
It identifies the keeper, they aren't tracking the driver.
Really can't get worked up about the fact that they know where VRMs have been.
I agree they should keep data secure, but so what that they hold it.

Mr Miata

3 posts

14 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
If you're not doing anything wrong, they cant send you a fine. If I don't want to pay a fine I won't drive over the speed limit. If I drove at 80 or 90mph and get a fine through the post then I've nothing to blame but myself.

But to be honest, I stopped speeding when I realised it made no difference to my journey times when I'd just get held up in traffic congestion or dozens of red traffic lights. It amuses me when someone goes flying past, just for us to catch him back up again when he's sat waiting at the next junction. You cant turn a 2 hour car journey into 20 minutes, if you're lucky you can only shave off 3 or 4 minutes and I cant really do anything with that 3 minutes.

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
Only when held by a data processor who holds other information making the vrm indirect PI

As I’ve explained and showed you the ICO guidance for .



neutral 3

5,261 posts

134 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
LunarOne said:
I don't like it at all. I don't like being on CCTV everywhere I go, and I don't like my journeys being tracked. I think the germans have the right attitude, with being able to opt out of having their properties appearing on google streetview. It's not even the thin end of the wedge any longer. Facial recognition, ANPR and CCTV everywhere mean we're already on the verge of very Minority Report style authoritarian policing. It has got to be put a stop to. There was once a thing called civil liberty, and that's gone.
Well Said !! I Do Not like it either.

Evanivitch

8,793 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
Only when held by a data processor who holds other information making the vrm indirect PI

As I’ve explained and showed you the ICO guidance for .
But ANPR doesn't just keep a list of VRN. It adds time and location. It does not need to be combined with external information. The Police already acknowledge this.

Evanivitch

8,793 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
It identifies the keeper, they aren't tracking the driver.
Really can't get worked up about the fact that they know where VRMs have been.
I agree they should keep data secure, but so what that they hold it.
And a phone number only identifies the bill payer, and the IP only the equipment.

You're really not understanding how data is collated in context and how GDPR acknowledges that.

vonhosen

37,267 posts

181 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
Only when held by a data processor who holds other information making the vrm indirect PI

As I’ve explained and showed you the ICO guidance for .
But ANPR doesn't just keep a list of VRN. It adds time and location. It does not need to be combined with external information.
It does to identify who was in the vehicle, which is the most important thing.
They already know who the keeper is without ANPR.

vonhosen

37,267 posts

181 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
It identifies the keeper, they aren't tracking the driver.
Really can't get worked up about the fact that they know where VRMs have been.
I agree they should keep data secure, but so what that they hold it.
And a phone number only identifies the bill payer, and the IP only the equipment.

You're really not understanding how data is collated in context and how GDPR acknowledges that.
I do understand it, but the whole point is they are not tracking identifiable individual's movements, the rest is fluff. Great it's subject to GDPR, great that puts responsibilities & limitations on them in relation to securing that data etc, but they still aren't tracking the movement's of identifiable individual's with it & that's what's important.

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Volvolover said:
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Evanivitch said:
Every day a journey said:
Might be a moot point, but a vehicles number plate doesn't ever 'belong' to us.
Neither do most email addresses or phone numbers, but they're still covered under GDPR. It's not about ownership.
But it still doesn't track an identifiable individual's 'movements'.
They have no idea who is in the vehicle at the time, just that there is a registered keeper (as required by statute) for the vehicle assigned that VRM.
What they have recorded is the VRM's movement.
And neither does a mobile phone or a IP address. But in a practical context of privacy and surveillance they are considered identifiable information.
Only when held by a data processor who holds other information making the vrm indirect PI

As I’ve explained and showed you the ICO guidance for .
But ANPR doesn't just keep a list of VRN. It adds time and location. It does not need to be combined with external information. The Police already acknowledge this.
As I said already, you haven’t read what I’ve posted. The police state the PI they collect which will include ANPR data and what they use it for and there are guidelines under how that can change in the public interest. As already quoted above.


Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 18:15

Evanivitch

8,793 posts

86 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
I do understand it, but the whole point is they are not tracking identifiable individual's movements, the rest is fluff. Great it's subject to GDPR, great that puts responsibilities & limitations on them in relation to securing that data etc, but they still aren't tracking the movement's of identifiable individual's with it & that's what's important.
So what point is surveillance okay by you? Because you seem to suggest that anything short of personalised trackers is okay. Which is an extremely unpleasant position to hold, and is why our government can continue to erode personal freedoms and privacy because it seems the electorate are entirely ignorant of what the law actually does to protect them.

vonhosen

37,267 posts

181 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
I do understand it, but the whole point is they are not tracking identifiable individual's movements, the rest is fluff. Great it's subject to GDPR, great that puts responsibilities & limitations on them in relation to securing that data etc, but they still aren't tracking the movement's of identifiable individual's with it & that's what's important.
So what point is surveillance okay by you? Because you seem to suggest that anything short of personalised trackers is okay. Which is an extremely unpleasant position to hold, and is why our government can continue to erode personal freedoms and privacy because it seems the electorate are entirely ignorant of what the law actually does to protect them.
If you want to know what I might find unacceptable personally you'd have to put up the scenario. I don't care about VRMs being recorded though.

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
I do understand it, but the whole point is they are not tracking identifiable individual's movements, the rest is fluff. Great it's subject to GDPR, great that puts responsibilities & limitations on them in relation to securing that data etc, but they still aren't tracking the movement's of identifiable individual's with it & that's what's important.
So what point is surveillance okay by you? Because you seem to suggest that anything short of personalised trackers is okay. Which is an extremely unpleasant position to hold, and is why our government can continue to erode personal freedoms and privacy because it seems the electorate are entirely ignorant of what the law actually does to protect them.
I’d suggest that just like Brexit or BLM if we hated the data collection so badly we’d make an issue of it and the current government would be voted out based on it.

A bit more ANPR isn’t going to affect me one bit compared to what else is gathered

Countdown

30,244 posts

160 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
neutral 3 said:
LunarOne said:
I don't like it at all. I don't like being on CCTV everywhere I go, and I don't like my journeys being tracked. I think the germans have the right attitude, with being able to opt out of having their properties appearing on google streetview. It's not even the thin end of the wedge any longer. Facial recognition, ANPR and CCTV everywhere mean we're already on the verge of very Minority Report style authoritarian policing. It has got to be put a stop to. There was once a thing called civil liberty, and that's gone.
Well Said !! I Do Not like it either.
Which part of my civil liberties are being infringed by ANPR, CCTV, facial recognition etc....?

ddom

3,492 posts

12 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
So we all want more police resource across the board but don't like the fact people breaking the law are made to pay in fines.......
How simplistic. You asked for data, its back there. Care to answer in between your rants?

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
ddom said:
Volvolover said:
So we all want more police resource across the board but don't like the fact people breaking the law are made to pay in fines.......
How simplistic. You asked for data, its back there. Care to answer in between your rants?
I’m not remotely ranting lol. Ive just made a technical point to Ivanisovic because he doesn’t understand what he was mocking me about.

What’s the question?

I saw the total of fines collected but isn’t that just a cheaper way of collecting the fines that would otherwise be collected by policemen if there were infinite resources?

Has ANPR made people commit more crimes or helped us (society) detect them better?

Edited by Volvolover on Tuesday 2nd March 21:04

Volvolover

519 posts

5 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
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

Pixelpeep Z4

6,408 posts

106 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
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

Evanivitch

8,793 posts

86 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
I’d suggest that just like Brexit or BLM if we hated the data collection so badly we’d make an issue of it and the current government would be voted out based on it.

A bit more ANPR isn’t going to affect me one bit compared to what else is gathered
Thankfully some of us do care enough. Which is why South Wales Police have stopped using face recognition software indiscriminately and Theresa May didn't pass her encryption busting legislation in 5 years. And also why GDPR is some of the most robust data laws in the world when it's not brushed aside by law enforcement agencies.

"A bit more ANPR" is laughable. You don't know how much ANPR is out there because they refuse to publish it. So you have no idea how much there is now, and how much more there could be. Truly, ignorance is bliss.