British License Plate Cameras? You Must Be Joking
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">I never joke about my work, 007...</div> <a href='http://www.theregister.com/content/6/32939.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.com/content/6/32939.html</a>
It seems that civil liberties are at risk all over...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Number plate recognition poised for national UK rollout
By John Lettice
Posted: 21/09/2003 at 15:05 GMT
Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are set to be deployed by police forces throughout the UK as a major plank of a campaign of "denying criminals the use of the roads." The system will link up to the DVLA, Police National Computer and a National Insurance Database, with these links alone giving it the capability of identifying untaxed, unroadworthy and uninsured vehicles, but they'll also facilitate police surveillance operations, the swapping of data on "prolific offenders" between forces and, well, other stuff... Take this, for instance:
"Eventually the database will link to most CCTV systems in town centres, meaning that all vehicles filmed on one of the many cameras protecting Bedford High Street, for instance, can be checked against the database and the movements of wanted cars traced to help with serious crime investigations."
The quotation is from a supplement to last week's issue of Bedfordshire on Sunday, paid for by the Bedfordshire Police Authority, but is based on a press release issued by the Authority earlier this year in support of "National APNR Day." Should this festival have passed you, like us, entirely by, you'll find some details here. Some 26 forces across the UK took part in the day, 21st May, checking 60,000 vehicles over a six hour period, resulting in 2,000 "activations", of which over 1,000 were reported for offences, with 65 arrests being made.
What happened to the rest of the 1,000 offenders? These will have been largely DVLA violations, possibly with some insurance offenders, although as far as we're aware the national insurance database is currently only partially online. A further report of the event from the BBC, here, claims a smaller number of forces and a larger number of arrests, but the reference to fixed penalty notices gives a signpost to how the system will operate once it's fully deployed.
You may, rightly, wonder about Bedfordshire Police's fevered promises regarding CCTV cameras. In the first place, CCTV and ANPR equipment are two separate things, with CCTV cameras not being designed for, and most certainly not being capable of, number plate recognition. And in the second place, there are legal restrictions governing the use of CCTV cameras in public places, meaning that prior to adding ANPR to CCTV stations the operating authorities should really be considering their legal position.
Deployment at CCTV stations is still some years down the line, but the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) ANPR FAQ lists it as one of four classes of ANPR system: "In-car devices; Transportable (e.g. mobile units that can be set up at the roadside); CCTV (that ?piggy-back? on existing systems); Fixed gantry systems that continuously monitor a stretch of road (e.g. in ports)."
So far, ANPR systems have been used in a relatively small number of tests, conducted by a relatively small number of forces with mobile units, i.e. monitoring so far has been highly selective. The second phase of tests, over 23 forces, ends in December, with a national rollout (probably the point at which gantries and CCTV piggybacking will be considered) anticipated for next summer.
How widespread will ANPR be? By its nature, such systems can only work effectively if they have a high percentage chance of identifying offenders. A mobile system swoop on a small number of roads over a couple of days will certainly produce a large number of offenders and a nice press release, but won't have more than a symbolic effect on the problems the system is intended to tackle. So rationally, if they're going ahead, ANPR should follow, perhaps even exceed, speed cameras when it comes to pervasiveness.
The approach used with the current test systems, of pairing camera teams with response teams, clearly won't work with permanently-sited systems, so there has to be an automated penalty system (as with speed cameras), and with this comes a need for corroboration systems in the event of disputes about accuracy, who was driving, obscuring of number plates, and so on.
The Association of Chief Police Officers' does not yet have policy guidance for ANPR, but the Road Policing Technology Code of Practice covers speed cameras in some depth, and will perhaps give you some indicators of the issues involved. You'll note there are issues involving privacy and retention of data, and one could reasonably presume that the widening of deployment and purpose of ANPR will require similar guidance.
What kind of systems can we anticipate? Through CCTV, the UK is already one of the most watched countries in the world, and the widespread deployment of ANPR will add to this. It will, certainly, reduce the number of dangerous cars, and may even reduce insurance premiums (it's the prospect of saving money, not necessarily the same thing, which has induced the insurance companies to chip in for the database), but with this we get the extra watching, for free.
Aside from improving and extending their data on the movements of 'known villains', the police will be logging the movements of everybody else as well. This data will likely be thrown away after a period, but is unlikely to be thrown away immediately - they demand retention of mobile phone and internet records, so the police data retention policies will at best be on a par with these.
Funnily enough, this trackability is what's going to happen anyway, a few further years down the line, when the government's plans for satellite tracking of vehicles and for associated road pricing schemes become feasible. But, erm, if we end up with a system with similar functionality based on ANPR before then, it's perfectly possible the show could be brought forward. Or, given that Transport for London is already operating a road-pricing scheme based on ANPR, there's a logic to joint police-local authority deployments in major cities. So pretty soon, we wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody started using the magic words, "pay for itself." ®
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So much for telling your folks you were at the library when you were really off snogging with your girlfriend on lover's lane...
It seems that civil liberties are at risk all over...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Number plate recognition poised for national UK rollout
By John Lettice
Posted: 21/09/2003 at 15:05 GMT
Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are set to be deployed by police forces throughout the UK as a major plank of a campaign of "denying criminals the use of the roads." The system will link up to the DVLA, Police National Computer and a National Insurance Database, with these links alone giving it the capability of identifying untaxed, unroadworthy and uninsured vehicles, but they'll also facilitate police surveillance operations, the swapping of data on "prolific offenders" between forces and, well, other stuff... Take this, for instance:
"Eventually the database will link to most CCTV systems in town centres, meaning that all vehicles filmed on one of the many cameras protecting Bedford High Street, for instance, can be checked against the database and the movements of wanted cars traced to help with serious crime investigations."
The quotation is from a supplement to last week's issue of Bedfordshire on Sunday, paid for by the Bedfordshire Police Authority, but is based on a press release issued by the Authority earlier this year in support of "National APNR Day." Should this festival have passed you, like us, entirely by, you'll find some details here. Some 26 forces across the UK took part in the day, 21st May, checking 60,000 vehicles over a six hour period, resulting in 2,000 "activations", of which over 1,000 were reported for offences, with 65 arrests being made.
What happened to the rest of the 1,000 offenders? These will have been largely DVLA violations, possibly with some insurance offenders, although as far as we're aware the national insurance database is currently only partially online. A further report of the event from the BBC, here, claims a smaller number of forces and a larger number of arrests, but the reference to fixed penalty notices gives a signpost to how the system will operate once it's fully deployed.
You may, rightly, wonder about Bedfordshire Police's fevered promises regarding CCTV cameras. In the first place, CCTV and ANPR equipment are two separate things, with CCTV cameras not being designed for, and most certainly not being capable of, number plate recognition. And in the second place, there are legal restrictions governing the use of CCTV cameras in public places, meaning that prior to adding ANPR to CCTV stations the operating authorities should really be considering their legal position.
Deployment at CCTV stations is still some years down the line, but the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) ANPR FAQ lists it as one of four classes of ANPR system: "In-car devices; Transportable (e.g. mobile units that can be set up at the roadside); CCTV (that ?piggy-back? on existing systems); Fixed gantry systems that continuously monitor a stretch of road (e.g. in ports)."
So far, ANPR systems have been used in a relatively small number of tests, conducted by a relatively small number of forces with mobile units, i.e. monitoring so far has been highly selective. The second phase of tests, over 23 forces, ends in December, with a national rollout (probably the point at which gantries and CCTV piggybacking will be considered) anticipated for next summer.
How widespread will ANPR be? By its nature, such systems can only work effectively if they have a high percentage chance of identifying offenders. A mobile system swoop on a small number of roads over a couple of days will certainly produce a large number of offenders and a nice press release, but won't have more than a symbolic effect on the problems the system is intended to tackle. So rationally, if they're going ahead, ANPR should follow, perhaps even exceed, speed cameras when it comes to pervasiveness.
The approach used with the current test systems, of pairing camera teams with response teams, clearly won't work with permanently-sited systems, so there has to be an automated penalty system (as with speed cameras), and with this comes a need for corroboration systems in the event of disputes about accuracy, who was driving, obscuring of number plates, and so on.
The Association of Chief Police Officers' does not yet have policy guidance for ANPR, but the Road Policing Technology Code of Practice covers speed cameras in some depth, and will perhaps give you some indicators of the issues involved. You'll note there are issues involving privacy and retention of data, and one could reasonably presume that the widening of deployment and purpose of ANPR will require similar guidance.
What kind of systems can we anticipate? Through CCTV, the UK is already one of the most watched countries in the world, and the widespread deployment of ANPR will add to this. It will, certainly, reduce the number of dangerous cars, and may even reduce insurance premiums (it's the prospect of saving money, not necessarily the same thing, which has induced the insurance companies to chip in for the database), but with this we get the extra watching, for free.
Aside from improving and extending their data on the movements of 'known villains', the police will be logging the movements of everybody else as well. This data will likely be thrown away after a period, but is unlikely to be thrown away immediately - they demand retention of mobile phone and internet records, so the police data retention policies will at best be on a par with these.
Funnily enough, this trackability is what's going to happen anyway, a few further years down the line, when the government's plans for satellite tracking of vehicles and for associated road pricing schemes become feasible. But, erm, if we end up with a system with similar functionality based on ANPR before then, it's perfectly possible the show could be brought forward. Or, given that Transport for London is already operating a road-pricing scheme based on ANPR, there's a logic to joint police-local authority deployments in major cities. So pretty soon, we wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody started using the magic words, "pay for itself." ®
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So much for telling your folks you were at the library when you were really off snogging with your girlfriend on lover's lane...
Comments
maybe its time i moved to fiji..
I dont own a car whatsoever.. im 14.. shall i leave the uk when im 18 and move to Fuji ?
UK Roads: 371,603 KM (230,900 miles)
US Roads: 6,370,031 KM (3,958,000 miles)
Did you notice at the very bottom of the article that they are also planning satelite tracking of cars in the UK? Talk about an expensive boondoggle - the most expensive military satelites do a pee-poor job finding targets right now, imagine them trying that in the land of overcast and rain that is the UK... gg tax dollars not well spent.
*Looks around with shifty eyes
And omg MonsE is back!
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU
Or here's another idea - don't drive a stolen car.
Or here's another idea - don't drive a stolen car. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
All fine and dandy. Until someone steals you car and commits vehicular homicide - then you can spend a few days in jail as they only record they have is a license plate registered in your name, and your alibi does not have any corroberation...
UK Roads: 371,603 KM (230,900 miles)
US Roads: 6,370,031 KM (3,958,000 miles)
Did you notice at the very bottom of the article that they are also planning satelite tracking of cars in the UK? Talk about an expensive boondoggle - the most expensive military satelites do a pee-poor job finding targets right now, imagine them trying that in the land of overcast and rain that is the UK... gg tax dollars not well spent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're jealous of our National Debt MonsE and are working hard to make theirs a more noteworthy number.
I don't know how touchy people in the UK are about their privacy rights but in the US something similar tried to get passed with the intention of recording what happened during a car crash in a "black box" and sending the info to insurance companies. When word got out that this sort of technology could be used to record the speed of a car and the info could be used in theory for speeding citations the idea got shot down and torn into a bazillion pieces.
Or here's another idea - don't drive a stolen car. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All fine and dandy. Until someone steals you car and commits vehicular homicide - then you can spend a few days in jail as they only record they have is a license plate registered in your name, and your alibi does not have any corroberation... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think a car in your name, which you have already reported stolen, is a good enough reason to keep someone in jail for a few days.
In the justice system, if your car gets stolen and the person who uses it commits a crime then you are going to be a suspect, and if your alibi isn't that great then you could be in trouble but this is going to happen whether or not the new system is brought into place or not.
There are already licence plate cameras in London to record on the <a href='http://www.cclondon.com/' target='_blank'>Congestion Charge.</a> which the Conservatives oppose <a href='http://www.conservatives.com/campaigns/campaign.cfm?obj_id=52134&CAMP=1' target='_blank'>http://www.conservatives.com/campaigns/cam...id=52134&CAMP=1</a>
Its utterly besides the point though - there is no good reason for some putz in the british government to know anything about your car 99.999% of the time. Using this as justification for catching a miserably small number of vehicle related major crimes is just a way for some politicians with stock options in these camera and software companies to make a fast buck (Err, pound. I mean, Euro. I mean... ).
In the US we call it 'pork barrel legislation' - a law that is seeking to fix a non-existent problem, and conveniently making rich people even richer. As was pointed out earlier, they tried similar nonsense recently in the US and it was immediately crushed under the weight of civil liberties and privacy violations it would have caused, not to mention the massive cost in a nation of 400,000,000 automobiles.
I shall ignore the low blow that was the Euro comment for the moment.
No member of the British Government or the Civil Service should be allowed to see this information without a decent reason, the finer points of which I am sure will be debated in Parliament.
In Britain there is the <a href='http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/' target='_blank'>Data Protection Act</a> which allows anyone to check any information a company or the Government holds on them. The Principles of the Act are <a href='http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/principl.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>.
What do you really think this law and license plate practice is going to do for you? Catch all six car thieves that are too stupid to cover up a license plate with a fake one, or tear it off completely, on their short trip to the chop-shop? It will cost billions of pounds, and will primarily serve to gather information on citizens that are decent and law-abiding. It is a boondoggle designed to enrich the rich, and give your government more control than it needs over its supposed electorate.
(and sorry about the Euro crack - it was too easy to pass up <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Mistaken identity will always happen - alas.
God knows why I am defending this as I am as opposed to it as anyone it seems like a pointless waste of time, although the Labour Government seems to only be good at those.
All I am saying is that if you don't drive a stolen car you should be alright and I don't think that your licence plate numbers comes up under MI5 or MI6 jurisdiction.
As I pointed it, this will cost billions of dollars to be easily countered by a car thief for free - and those are ostensibly the reasons for the law. Since its obvious to anyone that this sort of 'security' device can be defeated with a screwdriver or a piece of cardboard by any common thief, that cannot be the real reason for enacting this law, can it?
And as the freedom of information act has shown many times in the USA, <b>NOTHING</b>, no matter how terrible and damaging to anyone, is <b>EVER</b> deleted from the government's records. For gosh sakes, they got tapes released of Nixon calling black people n****rs in the freaking <b>OVAL OFFICE</b> with that act. The government archives still had them in pristine condition 30 years later...
With an Arab surname I am sure I come up on their list more than most, although they can follow me to my local Conservative Party meetings if they really want.
I'm sure they can already track people's cars if they feel the need.
I've seen Enemy of the State ya know.
I've seen Enemy of the State ya know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are a very silly person... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Stands to reason that for the tiny amount of cars that need tracking, a couple of policemen are certainly more cost-effective than a billion-dollar camera system...
I've seen Enemy of the State ya know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are a very silly person... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Stands to reason that for the tiny amount of cars that need tracking, a couple of policemen are certainly more cost-effective than a billion-dollar camera system... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Preaching to the choir man - thats why I'm voting Tory.
Seriously though, I agree that this is a bit too far into privacy invasion. Tracking criminals is one thing, but monitoring the every move of all citizens? That's unacceptable.
Imagine if we had this in the US? The RIAA would be using this thing to track people who go to Best Buy and get a pack of CDR's...
BEGONE CURRENCY OF EVIL!
Yes, let's all switch to a currency that's WEAKER than our own, hence damaging our own economy for very little gain, great idea.
But then, at my local supermarket the trolleys (shopping carts I believe you call them... strange language this Amereecain) already accept euros.
England will have no choice but to switch to the euro, whether we want to or not.
"We are the Europeans, we will add your superior economy to our own. Resistance is futile"
If we did away with privacy entirely, maybe our legislation would more closely match how we actually want to behave.
Just food for thought.
No member of the British Government or the Civil Service should be allowed to see this information without a decent reason, the finer points of which I am sure will be debated in Parliament.
In Britain there is the <a href='http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/' target='_blank'>Data Protection Act</a> which allows anyone to check any information a company or the Government holds on them. The Principles of the Act are <a href='http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/principl.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Sorry to drag this a teeny bit off topic, but..*
Er..remember when they proposed the government get total access to <i>everyone</i> in the countries email / fax / phone activities, should it be deemed necesarry to "prevent terrorism"?
( apologies, I've been searching the Reg and Guardian, can't find the pages I need yet. )
I know they could always do this, but you needed fairly high up clearance to do so.. court orders, special warrants , that sort of thing..
Fair enough, you might think, but I seem to recall that the "people with a decent reason" were now likely to include not only employees of the security forces / law enforcement, but also the tax office, customs, your local council ( !!! )and the departments of Agriculture and Fisheries ( !!!), amongst others...
The cool thing is, the government, to the best of my knowledge still hasn't indicated what the actual rank / seniority level "people with a decent reason" are required to be at before they have a quick rummage through your inbox.
Again, I'm sure a creative mind could come up with some reason why these agencies <i>might</i> need these powers to "prevent terrorism" but it does make me wonder why they didn't get them when the UK <i>actually had an ongoing terrorism problem?</i>
"Entitlement Cards" and a dna databse next no doubt..
I'm pretty familiar with the Data Protection Act, but I should think "National Security" will take precedence, wouldn't you?
: paranoia :
And no, I didn't vote for Blair, so it's not my fault.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyways, do carry on...
(And I do recognize the irony in using my own as well)
As for going O/T, I think you're on ok ground , Hampster. Still related, at least. There is a slippery slope to personal privacy, which is why lawyers in civil liberties organizations over here sometimes apear to go overboard in their protective stance. Better to have too much liberty than not enough, basically. Once they have a camera on your license-plate, it's a short distance to having one in every room in your house. Big brother indeed.
Unfortunately for our limey friends here, it looks like this particular bit of Big Brother is not a hypothetical, but about to become a fact of life. Glad I had my wedding and honeymoon in the British Isles in May, as I'd rather not go to some pseudo-Soviet police state in the near future...
ps: I'm sure Jade would approve XD. AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...
That famous American sense of humour strikes again. Boom boom.