Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sixstring on 16 July 2010, 14:55:59
-
Have recently been into the local force's CCTV control room to fit a couple of new DVR's (digital video recorders).
Chatting to the staff there (who are not police, but civilian support staff) and they showed me all the city centre pictures from the cameras, and pointed out the poor focus and poor colour of some of the older cameras there for maintenance purposes. Anyway, I was also shown the ANPR system in the force area, and was STAGGERED to find out how many there actually are, hidden in advertisement hoardings, on top of lamp posts, and on roundabout signs!!
It appears there are over 20 of these around the immediate area, and the picture quality is superb. At speeds over 80mph the front number plate is "frozen" in an image, 2 seconds later (I kid you not!) the vehicles tax, mot, insurance, driver who it registered to, and possible previous offences are on the screen, and can be printed out of sent to a police officers "smartphone" at the touch of a button, roadside or mobile. the pictures are good enough to identify the drivers face in the windscreen of the vehicle in daylight too, but poor in night time, although the l.e.d IR unit still captures the numberplate clearly.
Quite an eye opener for me,the company I work for supplies all the kit, but is not allowed to fit it roadside, Serco and ACP are currently contracted to do this.
Also, by 2013, it is anticipated ANPR cameras will be on all main junctions, because they are small enough to be mounted on the top of the poles of traffic lights now.
Technology is a wonderful thing.........!!
*EDIT* just got the new COP Security 2010 summer catalogue, and on page 19 they now sell full colour ANPR cameras in hi-res 520tvl at only £299-00 each (trade). And for the unbelievers amongst you, www.cop-eu.com/ANPR
-
Yes great technology. As you say its a spy on every street corner, which is of debatable benefit - particulary as its obvious to me that the technology is replacing trained Police Officers. Advance the tech (particularly face recognition) and its distribution 10 years and think about the possible benefits to the state.
Policing by camera is here - its more scary than the worst dreams of Huxley or Orwell. IMHO ofc.
-
Even a dyed-in-the-wool thicko like me, who believes that there's no substitute for boots on the ground (civil policing), recognises the worth of the technology.
I would feel somewhat easier however if I believed that this was being rolled out as part of a co-ordinated crime fighting measure rather than a revenue gathering tool (speed cameras), or an effort to police on the cheap (APNR ASC and the like).
Wearing my work hat I’m bound to say that there is absolutely no substitute for intelligence – lots of it and, thanks to these remote cameras, terrorism, fundamentalism and the previous British Government (New Labour), certain departments are getting it by the bucket load.
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
-
Begs the question as to what they are using the data for when we still have a problem with uninsured drivers and untaxed / MOT'd cars on the road. I would have thought hey could herd the lot of them into a crusher in an afternoon if they
put their minds to it weren't turning a blind eye.
No, we'll soon discover an ulterior motive, I'm sure.
Kevin
-
Begs the question as to what they are using the data for when we still have a problem with uninsured drivers and untaxed / MOT'd cars on the road. I would have thought hey could herd the lot of them into a crusher in an afternoon if they put their minds to it weren't turning a blind eye.
No, we'll soon discover an ulterior motive, I'm sure.
Kevin
That's the rub Kevin. If you're law abiding and pay your dues, they know where to send the bill. If the car's not registered, then they don't know who is driving it and, of course, there are insufficent bodies to get to the scene and stop it.
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
I like to roam the streets naked at 3am. I'm not doing any harm....damn cameras. ;D
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
I like to roam the streets naked at 3am. I'm not doing any harm....damn cameras. ;D
Well the photos would enhance your portfolio & you wouldn't have to pay for a photoshoot so maybe in your case there is justification?
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
I like to roam the streets naked at 3am. I'm not doing any harm....damn cameras. ;D
Well the photos would enhance your portfolio & you wouldn't have to pay for a photoshoot so maybe in your case there is justification?
It needs enhancing these days mate :(
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
I like to roam the streets naked at 3am. I'm not doing any harm....damn cameras. ;D
Well the photos would enhance your portfolio & you wouldn't have to pay for a photoshoot so maybe in your case there is justification?
It needs enhancing these days mate :(
Do these cameras have a zoom capability 6String? ;D
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
That oft-used argument does not work. It implies I have something to hide when I do not. Therefore "ergo" is incorrect- it does not follow.
As for policing on the cheap - I object to that most strongly. Once reduced in size the forces in the UK will never return to strength. I hope current and past officers on here will comment?
Extract from Computer Weekly article that seeks to debunk the myth of "nothing to fear" feb 25 2009: read it all here
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:
Continuity: When a large data gathering exercise is started, the lifespan of the system will almost always be greater than that of its instigators. The most benign and caring government, authority or private company is inevitably subject to a change of management, and if the new executive does not share their moral stance, then data can be reused for very dangerous purposes. Those who provided data believing they had nothing to fear may find that data is misused in the future.
Context: Those who use the NTHNTF argument most commonly use it in the context of government collecting information about individuals. In the information age, the idea of a single entity holding that information does not hold true. The massive pressures to share information within and beyond government mean that information is constantly on the move. Sooner or later, information held by the government will be shared across the government and with the private sector.
Control: Whether through a sharing agreement, aggregation of databases or simply leaving a memory stick in a pub car park, information is always shared sooner or later. Information security professionals always assume a system to be insecure, and plan for when - not if - data is lost or corrupted.
Consistency: The most important issue is that of consistent use of accurate information across all authorities and all individuals.
-
Nail on the head. ^^^
For Example: Government are skint so they decide to sell the data that this expensive network of cameras provide. Your insurance company buy it and, having processed the data, decide that they don't like the way you drive, despite your perfect accident record.
Exactly what happened with the electoral register.
Nothing to hide, so WTF are you always following me around?
Kevin
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
Unfortunately it's not a binary issue PF :( The intelligence that these cameras accrue has a far greater worth to some elements of the state which exceeds that gathered for the apparent purposes of monitoring road traffic regulations and so on.
The remote observation of the populace at large, made possible by overt (and covert) installations such as these, gives untrammelled power to the state - as a result of the intelligence gathered - to use in ways that bear no resemblance to the seemingly innocuous reasons given for such installations being in existence in the first place.
Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
The temptation is of course to reduce the number of police officers made available on the ground to detect these and many other offences as it's less expensive to run a network of cameras than it is to train and employ qualified (full-time) police officers.
-
The temptation is of course to reduce the number of police officers made available on the ground to detect these and many other offences as it's less expensive to run a network of cameras than it is to train and employ qualified (full-time) police officers.
Exactly, Meaning the generally law-abiding majority for whom A NIP can be dropped into the post get law and order in abundance while a growing underclass with no fixed abode, cloned number plates, no trace of income or outgoings and, in many cases, probably no right to be here in the first place are free to do as they please.
Kevin
-
Begs the question as to what they are using the data for when we still have a problem with uninsured drivers and untaxed / MOT'd cars on the road. I would have thought hey could herd the lot of them into a crusher in an afternoon if they put their minds to it weren't turning a blind eye.
No, we'll soon discover an ulterior motive, I'm sure.
Kevin
Spot on Kevin. They ought to use the Spanish method and stop everyone on a motorway and retain the untaxed or uninsured vehicles. It beats me how their can be so many trolling around on UK roads with so much ANPR available. I bet if I flew back and bought then drove an uninsured, untaxed and unMOT'd vehicle I wouldn't manage 500 yds.
-
The temptation is of course to reduce the number of police officers made available on the ground to detect these and many other offences as it's less expensive to run a network of cameras than it is to train and employ qualified (full-time) police officers.
Exactly, Meaning the generally law-abiding majority for whom A NIP can be dropped into the post get law and order in abundance while a growing underclass with no fixed abode, cloned number plates, no trace of income or outgoings and, in many cases, probably no right to be here in the first place are free to do as they please.
Kevin
As I said............ :P
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
That oft-used argument does not work. It implies I have something to hide when I do not. Therefore "ergo" is incorrect- it does not follow.
As for policing on the cheap - I object to that most strongly. Once reduced in size the forces in the UK will never return to strength. I hope current and past officers on here will comment?
Extract from Computer Weekly article that seeks to debunk the myth of "nothing to fear" feb 25 2009: read it all here
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:
Continuity: When a large data gathering exercise is started, the lifespan of the system will almost always be greater than that of its instigators. The most benign and caring government, authority or private company is inevitably subject to a change of management, and if the new executive does not share their moral stance, then data can be reused for very dangerous purposes. Those who provided data believing they had nothing to fear may find that data is misused in the future.
Context: Those who use the NTHNTF argument most commonly use it in the context of government collecting information about individuals. In the information age, the idea of a single entity holding that information does not hold true. The massive pressures to share information within and beyond government mean that information is constantly on the move. Sooner or later, information held by the government will be shared across the government and with the private sector.
Control: Whether through a sharing agreement, aggregation of databases or simply leaving a memory stick in a pub car park, information is always shared sooner or later. Information security professionals always assume a system to be insecure, and plan for when - not if - data is lost or corrupted.
Consistency: The most important issue is that of consistent use of accurate information across all authorities and all individuals.
I'm sure you will all have noticed that every time you come into contact with central or local government, or any of their agencies or when you apply to a public company for a job, you will almost certainly have to fill in a form about your ethnic origins, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. This data is supposedly collected to monitor diversity to ensure that there is no discrimination. It is supposedly anonymous data, retained by operatives who have no direct influence on the outcome of the application you have filled in, and it isn't passed to those who do have such influence.
I don't believe it. I can't see how it can help reduce discrimination.
If we ever have another Hitler come to power, the ethnic cleansing will be much more efficient. :( :( :(
Refuse to fill in these forms. They infringe your civil rights. :( :( :(
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
Do you absolutely trust every government there is has been and will be?
Would you have trusted Stalin, Hitler ect?
I do not, I did not trust the last lot for certain.
Put it this way - there was no way I would have got an ID card - even if they had gone compulsary.
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
Do you absolutely trust every government there is has been and will be?
Would you have trusted Stalin, Hitler ect?
I do not, I did not trust the last lot for certain.
Put it this way - there was no way I would have got an ID card - even if they had gone compulsary.
But what about our new government? No, I don't mean the Cleggerons, I mean....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7893047/Fears-over-new-EU-snooping-powers-for-police.html
We have been royally stuffed. Mind you, it hasn't been difficult, apathy is rife. >:( >:(
-
That certainly confirms that the data is intended to be shared....
Thanks for the link, I'll put my tinfoil helmet back on now - just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not watching you.
-
If you're not breaking the law then there's nothing to fear from the cameras ergo:
Those who voice objections must have something to feel guilty about
Do you absolutely trust every government there is has been and will be?
Would you have trusted Stalin, Hitler ect?
I do not, I did not trust the last lot for certain.
Put it this way - there was no way I would have got an ID card - even if they had gone compulsary.
But what about our new government? No, I don't mean the Cleggerons, I mean....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7893047/Fears-over-new-EU-snooping-powers-for-police.html
We have been royally stuffed. Mind you, it hasn't been difficult, apathy is rife. >:( >:(
Stuffed we may well have been Nick - even right royally so - however it's all in the greater good - gird your loins. :y :y
EU to be given prominent UN role
The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.
That explains it then. 8-) :y :y I'd buy it :y
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7890516/EU-to-be-given-prominent-UN-role.html
-
Stuffed we may well have been Nick - even right royally so - however it's all in the greater good - gird your loins. :y :y
EU to be given prominent UN role
The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.
That explains it then. 8-) :y :y I'd buy it :y
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7890516/EU-to-be-given-prominent-UN-role.html
Yes, Zulu, it does seem as if the EU clique is marching onward towards its goals. However, having read a number of comments about this development, none struck me as more apposite than this one from "itisafreecountry" on the Dan Hannan blog:
It is built on sand, which is why the political class does not dare to put it to the electorate.
As Europe ages and fails it will fragment.
Without popular support a United States of Europe is not going to happen, and it has no popular support.
You can buy the political class but the real problem is how you control an increasingly resentful demos within the constraints of a nominal democracy that needs a relatively open economy in order to sustain its standard of living.
The acceptance that the Constitution would be rejected by referenda was an admission of failure. It is now just a matter of time and a suitable catalyst.
My thoughts exactly. The EU is doomed to failure in the same way as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. It is only a question of when...and how violent it will be.
The reason, as the poster points out, is that it does not have a popular mandate. That fact alone seals its demise. :(
-
Stuffed we may well have been Nick - even right royally so - however it's all in the greater good - gird your loins. :y :y
EU to be given prominent UN role
The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.
That explains it then. 8-) :y :y I'd buy it :y
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7890516/EU-to-be-given-prominent-UN-role.html
Yes, Zulu, it does seem as if the EU clique is marching onward towards its goals. However, having read a number of comments about this development, none struck me as more apposite than this one from "itisafreecountry" on the Dan Hannan blog:
It is built on sand, which is why the political class does not dare to put it to the electorate.
As Europe ages and fails it will fragment.
Without popular support a United States of Europe is not going to happen, and it has no popular support.
You can buy the political class but the real problem is how you control an increasingly resentful demos within the constraints of a nominal democracy that needs a relatively open economy in order to sustain its standard of living.
The acceptance that the Constitution would be rejected by referenda was an admission of failure. It is now just a matter of time and a suitable catalyst.
My thoughts exactly. The EU is doomed to failure in the same way as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. It is only a question of when...and how violent it will be.
The reason, as the poster points out, is that it does not have a popular mandate. That fact alone seals its demise. :(
I would imagine that's the way pieces normally fall into place given a straightforward scenario where a sovereign government is chastised by its electorate having failed to meet the expectations of those electors.
I see the EU animal as something removed from the usual where the generally accepted precepts, of governing within the mandate granted by the electorate, may not necessarily play out.
'Brussels' has been very clever in entwining many aspects of day to day legislation throughout the membership nations by virtue of the plethora of directives and laws formulated to promote such a homologised entity. I don't think this will be so readily torn apart.
The Council and Commission seemingly have a clear agenda to establish and promote this super state and, as we have seen in the last but one referendum held in the Republic of Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, they apparently refuse to take no for an answer.
I think these ties are so well settled now that nothing, short of a fundamental economic collapse within the Euro Zone or extended military conflict between two or more member states, will rend the current and proposed arrangements asunder.
Determination by 'Brussels' and the apathy you mentioned in your reply to my post should see the state free to expand to the unhealthy extent we're discussing.