3 ms·

This is not an invasion of privacy. The UK has been doing this for years with ANPR to catch people speeding, stolen vehicles and people driving dangerously. E

This is not an invasion of privacy. The UK has been doing this for years with ANPR to catch people speeding, stolen vehicles and people driving dangerously. Edit: It wasn't entirely clear, but when I said, 'This is not an invasion of privacy,' I meant this to come off as an opinion. Not fact. Please do not read it as fact.

fweespeech 12y ago
The UK [politically] thinks many things are not an invasion of privacy, including requiring people to submit their names to the pervert list for access to porn. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_britain/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_bri...
sp332 12y ago
None of that makes it less of an invasion of privacy. Taking a picture of a car in public is probably fine, but intentionally building a database of my movements over time just in case I do something bad is stalkerish and creepy.
atom-morgan 12y ago
You didn't tell us why this isn't an invasion of privacy. You simply referred us to another government that does similar things.
switch007 12y ago
"John Catt, an 80 year old pensioner at the time and his daughter Linda (with no criminal record between them) - were stopped in 2005, had their vehicle searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by City of London Police and were threatened with arrest if they refused to answer police questions. After making formal police complaints, it was discovered they were stopped after their vehicle had been picked up by roadside ANPR CCTV cameras, after a marker had been placed against their vehicle in the Police National Computer database as a result of them being spotted attending EDO MBM demonstrations in Brighton" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK#...
- coherentpony 12y ago
  From the following paragraph: 'The Register has noted that "in theory a system could be organised in such a way that records of law-abiding drivers weren't generated at all, but that hasn't been the way things have panned out.' The problem here is not ANPR. The problem here is the application of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a law that is, in my opinion, not sufficiently circumscribed. A law that was also deemed illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. That same law can be used to stop and search anybody for any reason whatsoever, ANPR or not. The solution is to fix the law to prevent abuse, not to remove ANPR leading to potentially, and in my opinion, more dangerous roads. Here's a list of other abusive applications of this law that do not involve ANPR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44_2
  - switch007 12y ago
    The police used ANPR to very easily track them down to then use the Terrorist act...
    - coherentpony 12y ago
      Correct.
      - simoncion 12y ago
        The point is that the harder it is to do something, the less likely it will be done. If you have to post officers throughout a metro and distribute lists of plates to look out for, you have to contend with 1) The limited number of officers you can pull off of other police duties 2) The limited amount of space in each officer's head to keep that list of plates 3) The limited amount of focus each officer can give to the task of checking each plate that passes by This means that you'll either put out APBs for only the most important cases, or you'll move more manpower from other police duties to surveillance. There's a natural limiter in play. On the other hand, if you have your tireless friend whose powers of omniscience and perfect recall are only limited by the number of installed cameras in the city and hard drives in his array; you'll put out APBs for any case you feel like. Your friend will watch for all of them, 24/7/365. Because you don't need assign more manpower to watch for more plates, there is practically no upper bound to your ability to track persons of interest [0] within your city. I agree that improperly vague laws are a pox on all civil societies, but there's much more to this case than the Terrorism Act. The vast, inhuman ability of Those In Power to cheaply and easily surveil vast numbers of people is an issue that's no less important. [0] No matter how small the interest.
angersock 12y ago
I would never hold up the UK as an example of a beacon of privacy or civil rights. EDIT: And that's an interesting thing, because it seems like they're doing alright by their citizens and keeping them happy.

fweespeech 12y ago

The UK [politically] thinks many things are not an invasion of privacy, including requiring people to submit their names to the pervert list for access to porn. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_britain/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_bri...

sp332 12y ago

None of that makes it less of an invasion of privacy. Taking a picture of a car in public is probably fine, but intentionally building a database of my movements over time just in case I do something bad is stalkerish and creepy.

atom-morgan 12y ago

You didn't tell us why this isn't an invasion of privacy. You simply referred us to another government that does similar things.

switch007 12y ago

"John Catt, an 80 year old pensioner at the time and his daughter Linda (with no criminal record between them) - were stopped in 2005, had their vehicle searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by City of London Police and were threatened with arrest if they refused to answer police questions. After making formal police complaints, it was discovered they were stopped after their vehicle had been picked up by roadside ANPR CCTV cameras, after a marker had been placed against their vehicle in the Police National Computer database as a result of them being spotted attending EDO MBM demonstrations in Brighton" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK#...

coherentpony 12y ago
From the following paragraph: 'The Register has noted that "in theory a system could be organised in such a way that records of law-abiding drivers weren't generated at all, but that hasn't been the way things have panned out.' The problem here is not ANPR. The problem here is the application of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a law that is, in my opinion, not sufficiently circumscribed. A law that was also deemed illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. That same law can be used to stop and search anybody for any reason whatsoever, ANPR or not. The solution is to fix the law to prevent abuse, not to remove ANPR leading to potentially, and in my opinion, more dangerous roads. Here's a list of other abusive applications of this law that do not involve ANPR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Section_44_2
- switch007 12y ago
  The police used ANPR to very easily track them down to then use the Terrorist act...
  - coherentpony 12y ago
    Correct.
    - simoncion 12y ago
      The point is that the harder it is to do something, the less likely it will be done. If you have to post officers throughout a metro and distribute lists of plates to look out for, you have to contend with 1) The limited number of officers you can pull off of other police duties 2) The limited amount of space in each officer's head to keep that list of plates 3) The limited amount of focus each officer can give to the task of checking each plate that passes by This means that you'll either put out APBs for only the most important cases, or you'll move more manpower from other police duties to surveillance. There's a natural limiter in play. On the other hand, if you have your tireless friend whose powers of omniscience and perfect recall are only limited by the number of installed cameras in the city and hard drives in his array; you'll put out APBs for any case you feel like. Your friend will watch for all of them, 24/7/365. Because you don't need assign more manpower to watch for more plates, there is practically no upper bound to your ability to track persons of interest [0] within your city. I agree that improperly vague laws are a pox on all civil societies, but there's much more to this case than the Terrorism Act. The vast, inhuman ability of Those In Power to cheaply and easily surveil vast numbers of people is an issue that's no less important. [0] No matter how small the interest.

angersock 12y ago

I would never hold up the UK as an example of a beacon of privacy or civil rights. EDIT: And that's an interesting thing, because it seems like they're doing alright by their citizens and keeping them happy.