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."
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.
Re:Beauuutiful example (Score:3, Informative)
Privacy and the "Nothing to Hide" argument [slashdot.org]
Privacy? (Score:1, Informative)
Oay, which nuts are tagging this "privacy"? Are you familiar with the concept of privacy? By definition, things that happen in public - like driving from one place to another - are not private.
If you don't like the government recording some of the stuff that you do in public, please find another term to use instead of "privacy". It's completely misleading and dishonest, it makes you appear like a conspiracy nut, and it does a disservice to the people who campaign for true privacy who don't necessarily agree with you.
Re:Why stress this out? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The best part. (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:The best part. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can you taste that? (Score:5, Informative)
The boiling frog analogy [wikipedia.org] can absolutely be applied.
Welcome to the surveillance system.
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:No, *this* is the best part (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 network.
90% of the time, the police have nothing to do with instigating investigations against terrorist threads, these come from MI5 and MI6.
So the question comes back, why are the police being given access to this network when the majority of the crimes they have to deal with are every day things, like tracking bail absconders?
Though if you were taking the paranoid approach you'd consider, why haven't MI5/MI6 already got access to the network for this sort of thing? Or if they did, would we ever know about it?
Basically, privacy is a given human right, regardless of the individual; whether this is going to be used only for tracking "criminals" I've seen many times the re-definition of criminial which fits myself in other countries (remember when it was illegal to be homosexual?).
Even though I don't like the congestion charging cameras, they should be used only for the purpose that was approved of. I'm just wondering is it too late for 'citizens' to call a vote to appeal this decision, or will the sheep approve it even if we did?