Slashdot Log In
Police Given Access to Congestion-Charge Cameras
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jul 18, 2007 02:17 PM
from the creep-hard-to-stop dept.
from the creep-hard-to-stop dept.
The BBC is reporting that anti-terror Police officers in London have been given live access to the "congestion charge cameras", allowing them to view and track vehicles in real time. This is a change from the original procedure that required them to apply for access on a case-by-case basis. "Under the new rules, anti-terror officers will be able to view pictures in "real time" from Transport for London's (Tfl) 1,500 cameras, which use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to link cars with owners' details. But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Can you taste that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can you taste that? (Score:5, Informative)
The boiling frog analogy [wikipedia.org] can absolutely be applied.
Welcome to the surveillance system.
Parent
Form Letter (Score:5, Funny)
Your flagrant disregard for paying of the £8-a-day toll has been noted. Your days are numbered, Sir.
The best part. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, for now.
Re:The best part. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why you don't give a mouse a cookie...
Parent
Re:The best part. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The best part. (Score:5, Funny)
Or in this case, why you don't give a pig a camera...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. And they weren't to be used for National Security purposes when installed.
This is why you don't give a mouse a cookie...
The same exact thing happened here in the US. We were told the cameras would not be used by law enforcement at all. Not that anyone really believed it.
Likewise the anti-terrorism laws (including the infamous PATRIOT act) were supposed to be "only for terrorists" but the reality is that they are much more often applied to ordinary crimes.
Bottom line, if there is data available peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Give a man an inch and he thinks he's a ruler. Give him 12 inches and he is a ruler."
-- Marx, Groucho
Inch by inch....
Re:The best part. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The best part. (Score:5, Informative)
Jose Padilla was a Chicago street gang member originally from Brooklyn who converted to Islam while in prison. He was arrested, declared an "enemy combatant," and transferred to a military brig in South Carolina. He was denied due process, and he's an American citizen. The wikipedia article agrees with what I've read elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(a
These are just two examples. There are many more (the domestic wiretapping?) but these are the two that come to mind readily.
Parent
Re:Balance of Power (Score:5, Informative)
The public does have access to them. In the UK, we have the Data Protection Act, which basically boils down to giving you the right to request any information an organisation may have about you, including CCTV tapes. You may have to pay a handling fee of £10 maximum, but for that you might well end up with literally a lorryload of tapes and paperwork. If they don't pony up, then it's big fines time.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, *this* is the best part (Score:3, Insightful)
That "enduring threat" seems to consist of two recent attempts, both bungled by incompetent notscaryists, to let off car bombs in central London using previously unknown vehicles. Remind me how tracking everyone everywhere is going to do anything whatsoever to prevent that happening again?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Officer #1: Sir! Murder in progress!
Supervisor: Ignore that, we are not allowed to act on that information.
Officer #1: But sir! The victim is alive and crawling away... slowly... unseen for now...
Supervisor: Nope, terror only boy, terror only.
Meanwhile...
Officer #2: Sir! A turban-wearing terrorist is driving a car within 20km of the airport!
Supervisor: How do you know it is a terrorist?
Officer #2: Why else would a single man drive a car to the airport?
Superviso
Re:No, *this* is the best part (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even then, speeding tickets? Parking tickets? license registration? MOT?
It's almost impossible for a car to stay anonymous when in the UK and especially in London, but attaching this car to a terrorist or terrorist suspect is something which needs active human integration, which is why the police are being given access to the n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am quite willing to consider alternatives to my own viewpoint. I just think that the argument you make is a very dangerous one.
You focus on one side of the debate: the potential benefits of using cameras in this way. In fact, I would state the case for this more strongly than you do:
That clearly isn't true: use of c
I've said it before and I'll say it again: (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever it is they're doing, whatever reason it is they give for it, if there's anything about it such that they say 'no, no, we'd never use it that way' - they're planning to do just that, just as soon as they can get away with it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wost case - police watch you and I live our BORING lives
And once in a while, something funny, embarassing, or otherwise destructive to one's social character mysteriously shows up on YouTube or a BBC comedy show take-off of "funny videos". Mind you that you can be on your utmost best behavior in public, and still be a hapless victim caught up in someone else's asshattery.
Yeah no one cares too much about what you do as long as it's legal, moral and ethical. But if it's at least mildly entertaining, it's marketable, regardless of whether it's legal, moral, o
Slope: Slippery (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
yeah but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Observation is a form of evidence collection.
Police usually only act when they have a reasonable amount of proof that some illegal act is/has been committed. It's a precursor to "doing things about it."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you mean, "on the record," right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the anti-terror Police officers in London are anything like the anti-terror officers in the States, I would suspect that public acknowledgment means it's been going on for a decade, minimum.
New Rules? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until, of course, they change the rules again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, how could they anticipate future exemptions?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Beauuutiful example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Privacy and the "Nothing to Hide" argument [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as folks in the UK are concerned, I guess you never heard of the IRA. That's the reason that to this day, you will not find any trash cans on most London streets.
Also, if you truly believe that police monitoring TRAFFIC cameras in the UK was one of the goals of the terrorists then I want to have words with your teachers.
The goals of terrorists are to get us to be terrified and
Yeah, that'll last. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how long that'll last... which is to say, I wonder for how long they've already been using the data to at least track ordinary crime, just waiting for the general public to give up caring enough that they can use the reams of data they've collected with impunity. Or whether we, over here in the USA, will even find out that this kind of technology exists and is being used.
Anything the government can use against its citizens, it probably already is, and if not, it's only because of technical limitations they're busily trying to fix.
Jean Charles de Menezes (Score:5, Insightful)
Big Brother Bloomberg (Score:4, Interesting)
These cameras point at public places. Their data is public info. Their use, and abuse, needs to be overseen by representatives of the public. Probably on a time delay to give real police business the advantage for which they're installed. Probably with a process to allow total redaction to protect legitimately sensitive info, even though it was recorded in public, like for example which places are covered (and therefore which places have a blind eye). But without public oversight, they're just Big Brother's public eyeball.
Ordinary crime Vs National Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Government Criminal Justice Bill - Clause 58 (Score:3, Funny)
and no, i'm not taking the piss.
I don't see the problem here (Score:3, Interesting)
How about they also stop pretending that London webcams malfunction whenever there's a large protest, so that we can keep an eye out for criminal acts committed by the police. After all, if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about.</sarcasm>
Wrong way 'round... (Score:3, Informative)
...actually, something vague and expansive like "national security purposes" is probably the *worst* thing to grant extra enforcement powers for.
Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's a bit alarmist to go on about Big Brother, privacy, etc when we're talking about cameras that are in the street, as if you'll be showering there or rubbing butter on your lover.
Of course, a system like this could be abused if you started watching people jay-walk, but then again jay-walking is a crime and if a cop was standing there watching you, you'd also probably get in trouble (actually, probably not, I've never met a cop (personally) who cared about jay-walking in most cases).
To assume that any kind of authority watching you in the street is automatically big brother reminds me of people who live in the woods, want to separate from the US, and act like a bunch of crazies.
Anyone can see you in the street, log you for any purpose, and any cop can stop you and fuck with you. How is this any different than what's been happening for years? Other than it's over a camera now. You can't automatically jump behind "omfg privacy!" when it's in public. There are millions of people to watch, so it's a little naive and alarmist to assume it'll all be used to control your everyday life.
P.S. Sorry if this is hard to read, I keep having to hide the window from nosy co-workers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right, anyone can see you on the street. Where you are wrong is that unlike the general passer by who sees you for a sec and then moves on, the police with cameras can ID you on the street. You have privacy through anonymity. With
Oh, Regular Crime Just Isn't Good Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, we don't care about regular crime. Let it happen as much as you want. Heaven forbid that we might use possibly effective tools already in place to actually protect you and your property. Only terrorists are worth actually trying to give our best efforts towards.
You know, all things considered, I suspect the average Britain is in far more danger from ordinary crime, than from terrorism at this moment. And if a Terrorist isn't actually a Terrorist until he commits an act of Terrorism, then he's just an ordinary criminal up to that point, and will be left to purse his merry pursuits. What a crock!
I like the David Brin solution. Have cameras everywhere public, and allow everyone to access them at any time. No more secrets this way, and a lot less suspicion.
We tossed the Brits out, remember ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, no slippery slope here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the old seatbelt law 'we cant use this to stop you even if we see you with out a belt on the road' but it 10 years they had seatbelt enforcement roadblocks, 'for our protection'.
Wake the hell up people and put your foot down.
It won't take long with things like this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sense of privacy and individuality,
And increasing a government's
National opression and monitoring of its' citizens in every sense,
When citizens will become so depressed and feel so
deflated of their individuality,
And
Sense of personal freedom
That they will revolt.
Read your history books.
Re:Hm (Score:5, Insightful)
It always seems reasonable until it becomes too late to change it.
Parent
Re: United Kingdom , Tony Blair, George Bush (Score:4, Funny)
Do try to keep up. A little search-and-replace could keep your batshit insane rantings looking nice and fresh.
Parent