ANPR - Have Your Say

Author
Discussion

mwstewart

7,554 posts

187 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
No more surveillance/tracking/video please.

oceanview

1,511 posts

130 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
How come they're not used to pick up untaxed/no MOT/insurance?

I know the scrotes' wont have it registered to them so wont help catching them but, the fkwits who just don't bother with the costs (but vehicle registered properly) then they soon be picked up and dealt with.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
LunarOne said:
It's a shame that you don't understand our mindset, because it is people that think the way you do who are allowing the government to control every aspect of your life. You don't have to be engaged in criminal activities to be concerned about this. If I am concerned about being tracked by my mobile phone, then I can choose to switch it off. I cannot choose to switch off my car's numberplate to prevent the government tracking me. If you don't understand the why I say it's the thin end of the wedge, consider those living in the 1970s and 1980s. There was no such thing as facial recognition, and so CCTV, where it existed was only to record crime when it actually happened. It could not be used to track individuals. Right now, we are tracked everywhere we go without our consent. We are billed and charged based on where we have been and what we have been doing. Have you dropped a friend off at the airport? That'll be £5. Did you spend more than 10 minutes doing it? Thats £25 thank you. Did you travel between these two points on this road in less than this amount of time? That's £100 thank you.

In the near future, we won't be able to go anywhere or do anything without being billed. It's a tax on being alive that you cannot escape from. I'm sorry if you are so pusillanimous that you're happy to roll over and let this happen to you, but I don't agree with the creeping control that is overtaking our lives and I do not wish to be complicit in allowing it through my own inaction.
Tell me, without hyperbole, how the Government is currently "controlling every aspect of my life" with ANPR or otherwise.

People have been saying "in the near future" about the perils of CCTV/ANPR for years, probably decades at this point.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
I'm in favour of ANPR if it prevents or assists in solving crimes, which evidence suggests it does.

I do not personally give a toss how often or where I am recorded, as I'm not doing anything illegal and I'm oblivious to it anyway. It has never impacted my life in the slightest.
Where do you draw the line? A police camera on your street? Your front door? Your living room? Genuine question, how far is too far to prevent crime because you're not a criminal?
That is an absurdly reductive argument in the same vein as "if you're happy with this what's your email password???". Just because I don't have a problem with ANPR/CCTV doesn't mean I'm not entitled to some measure of privacy, or that there are limits. You (and others) are purposefully conflating the ambivalence or support of these schemes with a desire to have zero privacy. It is a completely specious argument.

What evidence have you got that there is any desire or action towards "ANPR in your living room", etc? People who rave about this crap always rely on ridicuious hyperbole rather than any actual evidence of authorities taking steps to read everyone's emails and film everyone in their homes, etc.

I sometimes wonder if these people secretly harbour a desire for this stuff, so as to validate their self-importance. The alternative, as expressed before, is that they're actually not that important and that they are at best an entry on a database that no one particularly cares about. That seems to be far more harrowing than the reality of how this is all used and deployed.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
donteatpeople said:
I'd draw the line at public places vs private places. I have an expectation of privacy in private places, I don't understand why anyone would have an expectation of privacy while in a public place. On your scale above that translates into no problem with a camera on my street, definitely no camera in my living room, my front door is a grey area.
So by that definition, government recording of your movements outside of your own 4 walls, not necessarily even including garden would be okay. That would include tracking your movements and who you meet and where in public. Your associates and your routine.

donteatpeople said:
A genuine question back... What civil liberties are affected by CCTV or ANPR? As I understand them liberties are about doing the things you want to do, I've never been prevented from doing anything legal by a camera. If you have a problem with wanting to do something illegal then surely the root cause of your issue is with the law and not with the camera?
Civil liberties are also about ownership, and in the 21st century that includes data. The government will not allow me to access the ANPR records they hold on the vehicles I drive, nor will they disclose how that information is collected.

I don't have to be acting illegally for someone with access to that data to benefit from that information.

And whilst I wholeheartedly agree that we all walk around with phones in our pockets, sending unencrypted data and sharing our image online, I accept fully that the horse has already bolted on much of that information. But I've willingly provided all that data because it's of benefit to me to have the functionality it provides.

Now driving is a privilege, and the law applies differently if I'm driving a car or walking on the street. So I accept that Police can use that as a reason to stop and identify, and I accept that ANPR is part of that balance too.

But what I wouldn't accept is an unmarked police car following me all day, everyday with no suspicion that I've committed or will commit a crime.

And that's what ANPR does. It's not using a watch list and then cross checking and discarding. It holds all that data for 12 months so retrospectively they can go back and build up your routines and interactions over a 12 month period. That is excessive in my opinion.

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
DaveCWK said:
Survey filled out from the POV that mass surveillance is bad; especially so if more people than the police/security service have access to it.
That's how I read it too, testing the water to give "others" access to their lovely database.

TX.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Durzel said:
That is an absurdly reductive argument in the same vein as "if you're happy with this what's your email password???". Just because I don't have a problem with ANPR/CCTV doesn't mean I'm not entitled to some measure of privacy, or that there are limits. You (and others) are purposefully conflating the ambivalence or support of these schemes with a desire to have zero privacy. It is a completely specious argument.
You said you were fine with it because you don't plan to do anything wrong. It's a line often trotted out when privacy is being discuss. The ambivalence because "I'm not a criminal" must be limited to a point, I'm always interested to know what that limit is.

Durzel said:
What evidence have you got that there is any desire or action towards "ANPR in your living room", etc? People who rave about this crap always rely on ridicuious hyperbole rather than any actual evidence of authorities taking steps to read everyone's emails and film everyone in their homes, etc.
Theresa May, as Home Secretary and Prime Minister spent years trying to implement legislation that would force providers of encryption services to provide a back-door.

Now that's either complete ignorance of technology (likely), complete naivety about civil liberties (worrying) or she was somehow influenced by outside factors into this continued line of legislation (which was subsequently dropped).

So whilst I don't the majority of government have any interest in our privacy, there have certainly been recent demonstrations that some people in government wish to remove the security that modern communications provide.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
donteatpeople said:
I'd draw the line at public places vs private places. I have an expectation of privacy in private places, I don't understand why anyone would have an expectation of privacy while in a public place. On your scale above that translates into no problem with a camera on my street, definitely no camera in my living room, my front door is a grey area.
So by that definition, government recording of your movements outside of your own 4 walls, not necessarily even including garden would be okay. That would include tracking your movements and who you meet and where in public. Your associates and your routine.
How do you know that isn't already happening? Answer: you don't.

In practical terms, the way things work right now, the only limitation that exists about monitoring your movements is the number of cameras in operation. For all you know, if you're living in the centre of a typical major city, you could easily be tracked from your front door.

Evanivitch said:
But what I wouldn't accept is an unmarked police car following me all day, everyday with no suspicion that I've committed or will commit a crime.
How many times has that happened to date?

Again, hyperbolic Minority-Report-in-my-mind thinking.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
That is an absurdly reductive argument in the same vein as "if you're happy with this what's your email password???". Just because I don't have a problem with ANPR/CCTV doesn't mean I'm not entitled to some measure of privacy, or that there are limits. You (and others) are purposefully conflating the ambivalence or support of these schemes with a desire to have zero privacy. It is a completely specious argument.
You said you were fine with it because you don't plan to do anything wrong. It's a line often trotted out when privacy is being discuss. The ambivalence because "I'm not a criminal" must be limited to a point, I'm always interested to know what that limit is.

Durzel said:
What evidence have you got that there is any desire or action towards "ANPR in your living room", etc? People who rave about this crap always rely on ridicuious hyperbole rather than any actual evidence of authorities taking steps to read everyone's emails and film everyone in their homes, etc.
Theresa May, as Home Secretary and Prime Minister spent years trying to implement legislation that would force providers of encryption services to provide a back-door.

Now that's either complete ignorance of technology (likely), complete naivety about civil liberties (worrying) or she was somehow influenced by outside factors into this continued line of legislation (which was subsequently dropped).

So whilst I don't the majority of government have any interest in our privacy, there have certainly been recent demonstrations that some people in government wish to remove the security that modern communications provide.
I prefer to live in a pragmatic reality rather than an Orwellian nightmare that people either think we already live in, or are perpetually moving towards "any day now".

I can only state based on my own experiences that my life has not been affected in any practical, measurable way by ANPR or CCTV. If, at some point in the future, I walked out of the front door and got arrested for "looking like I was going to commit a crime", I'd be the first to come back on here and say that you were right all along, and it's gone too far.

For what it's worth I agree with your point about encryption - as in the impact of unencrypting everyone's communications is not proportionate to the potential benefits of discovering terrorist activities, etc. I personally don't see that as the same as ANPR/CCTV though, though I can appreciate you might feel differently.

donteatpeople

831 posts

273 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
So by that definition, government recording of your movements outside of your own 4 walls, not necessarily even including garden would be okay. That would include tracking your movements and who you meet and where in public. Your associates and your routine.
That scenario would have zero impact on my life. Where I go, when I go there and who I meet are all freedoms that are protected in law.

mat205125

17,790 posts

212 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
LunarOne said:
There was once a thing called civil liberty, and that's gone.
And you probably need to ask the question why.

A sad state of affairs, but I for one would trade this in for more safety. I guess you can't have both.
Exactly

Law abiding citizens lose nothing in their liberties in the real world

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Durzel said:
How do you know that isn't already happening? Answer: you don't.
If it's happening then it's doing so outside of the law (unless I'm suspected of a crime). Which is a bigger issue...

Durzel said:
In practical terms, the way things work right now, the only limitation that exists about monitoring your movements is the number of cameras in operation. For all you know, if you're living in the centre of a typical major city, you could easily be tracked from your front door.
Of course, but ref South Wales police, that tracking could not be done with facial recognition software unless you were on a suspects list.

Durzel said:
How many times has that happened to date?

Again, hyperbolic Minority-Report-in-my-mind thinking.
I don't know, it's an unmarked car and I'm not trained to identify being tailed.

So something that could have happened 40 years ago is minority report hyperbole, grow up.

As I said, ANPR does just that and we have no idea the density or proximity of those cameras because the police claim we're unworthy of the data.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
donteatpeople said:
Evanivitch said:
So by that definition, government recording of your movements outside of your own 4 walls, not necessarily even including garden would be okay. That would include tracking your movements and who you meet and where in public. Your associates and your routine.
That scenario would have zero impact on my life. Where I go, when I go there and who I meet are all freedoms that are protected in law.
Except Covid has shown that's not the case, is it?

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Halmyre said:
Every day a journey said:
A vital tool in the arsenal of all Police Forces (I refuse to call them a Police Service, they are the Police Force).

ANPR has been absolutely crucial in far more serious cases than 'no insurance' etc.

The only people that would be against it have something to hide.
Stop right there with the "innocent have nothing to fear" bks.
It’s too late anyway.
You don’t leave home without a personal tracker on your pocket.
Police database for your phone location, interesting scratchchin Plus you can actually leave home without it which is what I do (or did) when the Pubs were open and meeting friends etc.

TX.

Volvolover

2,036 posts

40 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
So for those tinfoil hatters who object to the use of ANPR and helping the police do their job bacause a vehichle registered to you can potentially be identified, i can only assume you browse here on the dark web and don't carry a mobile phone, have also scrutinised the data sharing agreement on all your apps and phone contracts, because there is way way more detailed location data available on you ( not your car ) passed around for commercial purposes generated by your phones than ANPR can ever hope to generate.


Every day a journey

1,543 posts

37 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
oceanview said:
How come they're not used to pick up untaxed/no MOT/insurance?

I know the scrotes' wont have it registered to them so wont help catching them but, the fkwits who just don't bother with the costs (but vehicle registered properly) then they soon be picked up and dealt with.
DVLA do indeed use them for picking up untaxed vehicles on the road

Police most certainly use it for uninsured vehicles.

Do you actually know how it works???

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
We absolutely definitely need more systems that stop OTHER people from committing crimes/offences (or even legal stuff) that I don't like.

However, what I'm absolutely against, from a principled point of view, is systems that stop me personally from doing illegal stuff. Quite frankly I only do stuff which isn't really that bad. Also these kinds of systems are one step closer towards turning us into a nation of Stasi Chinese Snitches, which nobody wants.

swisstoni

16,850 posts

278 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
Police database for your phone location, interesting scratchchin Plus you can actually leave home without it which is what I do (or did) when the Pubs were open and meeting friends etc.

TX.
Clever. Clever!

Terminator X

14,921 posts

203 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Durzel said:
How long has CCTV and ANPR been around, and how long have people been prophecising Minority Report "thought crime" nonsense? I feel like it's probably been on its way for as long as cameras have existed.

I'm in favour of ANPR if it prevents or assists in solving crimes, which evidence suggests it does.

I do not personally give a toss how often or where I am recorded, as I'm not doing anything illegal and I'm oblivious to it anyway. It has never impacted my life in the slightest.

I don't understand the mindset of people who persist with the whole "thin end of the wedge" argument, like they're actually important, as if the Government cares about them specifically (outwith committing crimes). They don't, but their internal narrative dictates that these entities care about them.

EDIT: I would also add that the Venn diagram of people moaning about their privacy being sacrosanct and living their life online and walking around with a mobile phone that can be triangulated to a location even without GPS is probably close to being a single circle.

Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 16th February 11:50
You are sleepwalking in to it though. CCTV was initially there as a manned camera to protect us from criminals. Then it changed from a person to "software" and was used to track criminals via ANPR. Then it was used as an average speed check on motorways. Then it was used as an average speed check on non-motorways. What's next? You can't see it at all?

What about facial recognition? Just a software update. Imagine if that database can be sold to third parties? Being used already much to my surprise:

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/09/04/fac...

The irony is that hardened criminals easily evade it all - cheap PAYG phones, cloned plates, stolen cars, hoodies covering their faces ...

TX.

Cold

15,207 posts

89 months

Tuesday 16th February 2021
quotequote all
Who watches the watchers? And who watches them?