Number plate recognition - invasion of privacy?

[Softus]

To me, there's something suspicious about the objection to cameras that monitor number plate movement. For example, some people appear to be objecting on the grounds of personal privacy.

I can't see any grounds for objection, other than needing to see a justification of the costs involved. Are there people who forget to whom the registration mark actually belongs, i.e. the government? Number plate recognition systems aren't tracking personal movement, or even car movements, merely number plate movements.

Given this, what can be wrong with the government, on everyone's behalf, tracking the location of each number plate, since it has no bearing on civil liberty?

If you don't want anyone to track the location of the number plate on your car, then f***ing walk.

 

[TimWest]

To me, there's something suspicious about the objection to cameras that monitor number plate movement. For example, some people appear to be objecting on the grounds of personal privacy.

I can't see any grounds for objection, other than needing to see a justification of the costs involved. Are there people who forget to whom the registration mark actually belongs, i.e. the government? Number plate recognition systems aren't tracking personal movement, or even car movements, merely number plate movements.

Given this, what can be wrong with the government, on everyone's behalf, tracking the location of each number plate, since it has no bearing on civil liberty?

If you don't want anyone to track the location of the number plate on your car, then f***ing walk.

That's wrong it's everyone's right to drive and the government should get rid of the cameras as they invade a person's privacy.

 

[ellal]

To me, there's something suspicious about the objection to cameras that monitor number plate movement. For example, some people appear to be objecting on the grounds of personal privacy.

I can't see any grounds for objection, other than needing to see a justification of the costs involved. Are there people who forget to whom the registration mark actually belongs, i.e. the government? Number plate recognition systems aren't tracking personal movement, or even car movements, merely number plate movements.

Given this, what can be wrong with the government, on everyone's behalf, tracking the location of each number plate, since it has no bearing on civil liberty?

If you don't want anyone to track the location of the number plate on your car, then f***ing walk.

Well maybe you ought to check out the way ANPR is used for 'profiling', and then it night become a bit more obvious why there is a privacy problem..!!

"What the data centre should be able to tell you is where a vehicle was in the past and where it is now, whether it was or wasn't at a particular location, and the routes taken to and from those crime scenes. Particularly important are associated vehicles,"

The term "associated vehicles" means analysing convoys of cars, vans or trucks to see who is driving alongside a vehicle that is already known to be of interest to the police. Criminals, for instance, will drive somewhere in a lawful vehicle, steal a car and then drive back in convoy to commit further crimes "You're not necessarily interested in the stolen vehicle. You're interested in what's moving with the stolen vehicle,"

Nothing to hide, but still something to fear!!

 

[Softus]

it's everyone's right to drive and the government should get rid of the cameras as they invade a person's privacy.

Everyone has a right to drive? I think not. You have to have a license, and there's no automatic right to have one of those.

 

[Bahco]

Can't see why anyone would object to a national DNA database, ANPR, or spy cameras on every major road.

As a law abiding citizen (most of the time ) I do not have anything to hide and all of these measures would surely deter crime.

These civil rights people need to take their head out of the sand and recognise that some measures would make our country a lot safer than it is now for our children.

 

[Softus]

These civil rights people need to take their head out of the sand and recognise that some measures would make our country a lot safer than it is now for our children.

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, Bahco. For example, I consider myself to be generally in favour of upholding civil liberties, but I also value the police and the laws that they uphold.

My point (above) was that tracing the movement of a number plate is not an infringement of personal or civil liberties, since there's no divinely-bestowed right to have a number plate.

Unfortunately there are people who view any new law as being a change for the worse - mainly those people who actually do have something hide, and are passing off their guilt under the banner of lobbing for civil liberties.

 

[ellal]

Unfortunately there are people who view any new law as being a change for the worse - mainly those people who actually do have something hide, and are passing off their guilt under the banner of lobbing for civil liberties.

That too is a bit of a 'sweeping generalisation'..!

Why is it that people who object to the state cataloging their movements 'must have something to hide'?..

I gave the example of 'associated vehicles'...do you know what that means in the real world?. If you happen to be travelling near a 'suspect' vehicle, then you can be 'flagged' as suspect too - and stopped for no reason. It also goes on record that you are 'associated' with a suspect vehicle!

And do you not think that the real crims will get around this?...as usual it will be the innocent that will suffer the agravation of this!

The 'nothing to hide brigade' can't spot the difference between criminality and a right to privacy!

 

[Softus]

Unfortunately there are people who view any new law as being a change for the worse - mainly those people who actually do have something hide, and are passing off their guilt under the banner of lobbing for civil liberties.

That too is a bit of a 'sweeping generalisation'..!

No is isn't, not in the same way at all.

Bahco wrote "These civil rights people...", whereas I wrote "mainly those people who actually do have something hide".

Why is it that people who object to the state cataloging their movements 'must have something to hide'?..

Again, I didn't say "must". You're making it up as you go along.

I gave the example of 'associated vehicles'...do you know what that means in the real world?. If you happen to be travelling near a 'suspect' vehicle, then you can be 'flagged' as suspect too - and stopped for no reason.

Yes - I live in the real world, probably spend more time on the road than you do, and I'm fully aware that I can be stopped and questioned for what is actually a very good reason.

It also goes on record that you are 'associated' with a suspect vehicle!

So what? I have nothing to hide. I don't care how many times the police stop me if it's in the course of doing their job - they're acting in my best interests.

And do you not think that the real crims will get around this?

You're naive. I suppose you think that the July 2005 bombers were too clever for the police to trace.

The 'nothing to hide brigade' can't spot the difference between criminality and a right to privacy!

Oh there's a difference, being that people with nothing to hide don't feel the guilt that you do.

 

[ellal]

Yes - I live in the real world, probably spend more time on the road than you do, and I'm fully aware that I can be stopped and questioned for what is actually a very good reason.

Really..a vague suspicion based on a 'computer model' is a good reason to stop you then?

So what? I have nothing to hide. I don't care how many times the police stop me if it's in the course of doing their job - they're acting in my best interests

As usual some people get things the wrong way around...If as you say 'you've got nothing to hide', then you are innocent. Stopping you is therefore presuming you have may have done something wrong - that's called the reversal of 'innocent until proven guilty'....so exactly in whose best interests is this??

This won't stop the next terroris act...or the next...or the next. Terrorists adapt, but ordinary INNOCENT people will still be stopped in increasing numbers!

You may be happy to be stopped whilst having done nothing wrong, but I'm not...so in reply to your new presumption..

Oh there's a difference, being that people with nothing to hide don't feel the guilt that you do.

I'll just presume that as you've got nothing to hide, you're actually sitting there feeling rather smug knowing you have done NOTHING wrong!...I'm certainly not feeling guilty for not wanting the state to track my movements and falsly assume that I must be up to something - and therefore must be spied upon as much as possible.

 

[JohnD]

There is a view that when looking at a law, you should consider, not just how it will be used by a decent, honest, freedom-loving government that loves all citizens and visitors equally; but how it might be used by someone else at another time.

 

[ellal]

There is a view that when looking at a law, you should consider, not just how it will be used by a decent, honest, freedom-loving government that loves all citizens and visitors equally; but how it might be used by someone else at another time.

Indeed...along with the ever present 'function creep'..

However, in this case ANPR has never even been debated in parliament, let alone in the country as a whole..there hasn't been a 'law' bringing this in!

The state is acquiring the tools of mass surveillance by stealth!

 

[TimWest]

it's everyone's right to drive and the government should get rid of the cameras as they invade a person's privacy.

Everyone has a right to drive? I think not. You have to have a license, and there's no automatic right to have one of those.

?? Everyone has the right to drive to be able to drive needs a licence! if you arehaving trouble grasping that then perhaps you shouldn't try criticising others but look closer to home.


++++++++++++++
Moderator's note:

Hello, welcome back. Another new username, I see.

Mod Rupert
++++++++++++++

 

[Thermo]

ANPR has been in use for years, before it came into the public domain. It was developed for use in combating the IRA and was kept out of the public domain until the last couple of years when the threat was removed and it was realised it was a useful piece of equipment.

ANPR works on the basis of reading the number plates and checking the numbers against those held on any of the databases eg, insurance, mot, dvla, Police national computer and local police systems. It does not capture data or hold it. It merely flags up that a vehicle has an intrest on it and the police will then stop it and deal with it. So as for the assumption you will be put onto the database because you are driving near another suspect vehicle, well im sorry but thats wrong. To be stopped the vehicle has to have come to police notice for some reason. eg stolen, no tax, no insurance, involved in burglaries, used by a known drug dealer etc. Sorry if that puts any myths to bed, but i worked on a stolen vehicles unit that used it.

As for being stopped on the road, The police have a right to stop anyone driving on the road at any time and any place. they also have the right to demand your details. Why because you drive on the road under licence.

 

[ellal]

So as for the assumption you will be put onto the database because you are driving near another suspect vehicle, well im sorry but thats wrong. To be stopped the vehicle has to have come to police notice for some reason. eg stolen, no tax, no insurance, involved in burglaries, used by a known drug dealer etc. Sorry if that puts any myths to bed, but i worked on a stolen vehicles unit that used it.

Well that may have been in the past, but data collected from ANPR is to be kept for 2 years (the police want 5)..This from ACPO

Details of any vehicle passing a camera will be stored in a database for at least two years — even if the owner has not committed an offence.

Now in addition, profiling is being used...at a festival I attended this year, one of our group of cars was stopped after being spotted by an ANPR camera. It turned out they were stopping ALL diesel cars on that road (and dipping the tanks) because they reckoned some would be using 'red diesel' since there was a festival nearby!!...so there's the example of profiling. However, one plod was so pleased with his new toy that he was explaining that the example I gave about association was one use the new database would be put to - and that an 'innocent' plate could be 'flagged'...

But hey, don't take my word for it..

The quote about 'associated vehicles' was made by Frank Whiteley, Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and chairman of the Acpo steering committee on automatic number plate recognition...so...

any vehicle which appears to be "associated" with the "suspect vehicle" , i.e. one which happens to pass an ANPR camera at about the same time, will also have its movements logged and retained and the driver will have his or her police intelligence file 'marked'.

Many databases are expected to be linked to the ANPR..

 

[Bahco]

I doubt very much that the police are going to waste their limited resources on profile groups, as you put it.

Anything that helps to make our country safer should be encouraged.

CCTV will assist in deterring crime and should be rolled out across the country, funds permitting of course.