Police Given Access to Congestion-Charge Cameras 293
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."
Can you taste that? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, can't taste it, but I got a better idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can you taste that? (Score:5, Informative)
The boiling frog analogy [wikipedia.org] can absolutely be applied.
Welcome to the surveillance system.
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...
Re:The best part. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The best part. (Score:5, Funny)
Or in this case, why you don't give a pig a camera...
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:2)
Hilarious (intentionally?) take on the tale to which you are referring.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
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.
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?
The next time... (Score:2)
-- Terry
Re: (Score:2)
If they try again, at least the cops will be able to say that the cars were not previously unknown?
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, 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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because police never commit crimes. (Score:2)
I think your "Wost case" is more than a little understated.
And your "Best case" is more than a little optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said, the problem isn't that I want to do wrong things.. the problem is, the government gets to decide what is wrong, and change that, whenever they like.
Slope: Slippery (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
If observation is a form of evidence collection, and they only act when they have evidence of a crime, then by now seeing a lot more "evidence", there will be a lot more to act on. Turning otherwise normal people into criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of goes hand in hand with that saying, "it's only illegal if you get caught." 8-)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the London congestion charge has only been in operation itself for a little over four years, that is unlikely.
Perhaps instead of inventing scare stories during these discussions, it would be best to focus on the real dangers posed by the real actions of real people?
Re: (Score:2)
I read the GP's post as snark not to be taken (completely) seriously.
His post was like taking a pie to a knife fight.
Your post was like taking a gun to a pie fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Criminals use cars? haaaaa (Score:2)
You can always use bright IR-light to flood your plates so the camera which is more sensitive to IR would see a blank. Or get those JAMES BOND plates that cycle between 3 numbers.
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:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Privacy and the "Nothing to Hide" argument [slashdot.org]
Yep. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, our Government(s) do things like the article with the blessing of the majority of folks thinking that they're "fighting" terrorism, when in fact, by reacting they way they are, they are playing right into the hands of the terrorists.
The terrorists want to cause terror and make us react in exactly the way we (the majority) have
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it could be said, then, that owing to human nature, terrorism is guaranteed to work?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure that the majority of folks in the UK approve of this measure.
``The terrorists want to cause terror and make us react in exactly the way we (the majority) have been - giving up our civil rights, running around panicking, and anytime there's even a threat of an attack, our level goes up to "Orange" or some such nonsense.''
Maybe, but I don't think so. I think causing terror is just the mean
Re: (Score:2)
This rationale illustrates a common myth.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If your aim is a completely open society, then even that should be released so that the blind spots get fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
But I am for a the maximum openness in the public sector. Which also accommodates some rare, yet real, needs for immediate secrecy. But any secrecy, however fleeting, m
Re: (Score:2)
I explained in my post the exact way that public photos of public places can be spying. But you're too fucking stupid to read.
The data is public info, as I said, but how does the public get it? No one knows, so no one will be able to , you fucking piece of stupid shit.
The only dumb I am is to dignify some stupid AC bullshit by responding to it. But why not? This is a public post, so anyone can read it.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that Bloomberg has not bothered trying to restore the commuter tax that his Republican predecessor Giuliani dropped, which used to pay for the City servi
Re: (Score:2)
There are other, also fairly obvious, consequences. If you try, you can think of them. Only if you're willfully blinding yourself, to the loss of these cameras' utility without some
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you what. I'll meet you in Madison Square, near the 5th/23rd entrance, at 1PM this Sunday. I'll be the one wearing the red T-shirt and jeans.
I'll gladly hand you your ass. Stupid bitch.
Ordinary crime Vs National Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
well,that is the end of ... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, if someone wants to track you in public they need to actually follow you around. The person being followed is not likely to be happy about that. Why is it any better to do it via camera? Shop cameras are individual. The government needs to get subpoenas to look at each one (in theory). Government controlled traffic cameras are linked.
It might not be as
You really don't understand privacy (Score:2)
I huighly recommend this paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =998565 [ssrn.com]
to clue you in on the various aspects of privacy.
While most people in law enforcement are honest hard working people, some aren't.
Some will look for any reason to bust someone of a different race, some people will use information to try and peg a crime on someone, anyone not just the perpetrator.
There is plenty of abuses you can read about
I doubt this could ever be abused. (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
In Soviet Russia (Score:2)
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.
Cameras are a PRODUCTIVITY DEVICE (Score:2)
Wherever a police officer could be standing, there could — legally, morally — be a surveillance camera. We just can't afford this many policemen, and the cameras simply allow fewer of them to be (much) more productive.
There will be more of them, and there is nothing wrong with it, unless they peek into what's justifiably considered private — which they could do, but a live policeman is much more likely to.
The problem with Big Brother was not that it was "always watching", but that it w
Ordinary (Score:2)
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.
Jaywalking?!!! something to do with small birds? (Score:2)
We don't have that as a law over here in the UK. First time I found out about it was when I crossed the road in the USA (12 hours after I entered your country) and I heard a police siren, I got shouted at to stand on the side of the road and the police bike cop wrote me a ticket. I knew I'd done something wrong when she pulled out the ticket book, hadn't a clue what I'd done t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You are clearly madder than Mad Jack McMad on a mad day,
It is obvious to everyone in the country that Bair is easily led by anything shiney, and has no grasp of the concept of truth.
However, the alternative is not very convincing "We are the party of convictions - most of us have been convicted of fraud or corruption" has not been a successful campaign for the Tories. And the liberal-democrat plea "More tax is better - pay more tax" is not going to win them a lot of votes.
"Better the devil you kn
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, massively different! The puppets change, but its the same show!
This time with feeling! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that's right. Kill the Muslims, because all 1.6 million [britishembassy.gov.uk] of them living in the UK must be terrorists!
Don't you even consider that if you tolerate all Muslims being murdered then maybe you'll be next? And that if all Muslims were terrorists then we'd have a full-scale civil war going on?
Just remember that most of those people who have 'invaded' are normal, peaceful, law abiding citizens. Stop reading The Sun and The Daily Mail, pull your head out of your arse and get a grip on reality. Please, for t
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My second act will be to round up every single BNP voter and Daily Star reader and imprison them for the good of humanity.
My third act will be to fire all ex-hippies from the Social Services.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let me take a wild guess (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck, one woman here in the States reported that the traffic cop who pulled her over ran a check on her recent purchases (thanks to the credit card datamines) and told her what type of underwear she had recently bought.
Let me also guess that you've never been the victim of sexual harassment.
There
Oh? (Score:2)
They can look for patterns. You happen to behave in a pattern they don't like, bam, 3 hours in a room for questioning.
You break a pattern, you become a 'person of interest'
Perhaps there is a murder and the police need to get people for questioning, or are under pressure to put someone away, they can grab the person on the camera they feel a jury would convict with minimal evidence.
Looking a
a little obvious reason (Score:2, Insightful)