60 per cent of drivers stopped do not give their true identity

[detective-boy]

I am actually a computer programmer so prehaps I think about these things in a different way to you. They are actually the same tasks, the only difference is that one is manual and the other isn't. You could acheive the same affect by having thousands of police officers reading everyones email and looking for phrases.

In relation to the actual scanning process, yes. And I have no problem with debating whether or not it should be done at all, manually or automatically (I personally believe there is a time and a place for it but it shouldn't be done generally).

But if you are a computer programmer, you will know that a computer program will ONLY look for and remember what you tell it to look for an remember, whereas a person will see, and may note / remember / act on, everything else.

Take the phrase:

"I don't think the semolina texture will work very well on something that size"

A computer programmed simply to find the word "semtex" and flag up anything containing it would not flag this phrase.

A person looking for the word "sentex" would read this, realise it was gibberish and think about it ... and realise that semolina texture MAY be code for sentex in the context of the phrase.

You could produce a programme which would do that, but unless you had some idea of what to tell the program to look for (perhaps the letters s,e,m,t,e and x within 25 characters of each other in that order) you couldn't devise a program which would "read" things like a human does or, if you did, it would flag up so much stuff that you would have too much to act on.

Computer software scanning communications is not the same as a person reading something and no-one has come close to convincing me otherwise yet.

 

[TAE]

No simplistic word-search scanning software will pickup the "hello" message:

# #  ###  #    #    ####
# #  #    #    #    #  #
###  ###  #    #    #  #
# #  #    #    #    #  #
# #  ###  ###  ###  ####

Terrorists are more likely to send messages such as "meet granny by the church on sunday" than "come round and pick up the semtex".

Hence the scanning software must do shape recognition and/or look for everyday innocent phrases.

 

[sleaterkinney]

In relation to the actual scanning process, yes. And I have no problem with debating whether or not it should be done at all, manually or automatically (I personally believe there is a time and a place for it but it shouldn't be done generally).

Can you expand on that?.

But if you are a computer programmer, you will know that a computer program will ONLY look for and remember what you tell it to look for an remember, whereas a person will see, and may note / remember / act on, everything else.

This is true, but it's the act of scanning itself, not the fact that it remembers. In my example - if could guarentee that the cops would forget everything they read I'd still be against it - it's an invasion of privacy.

Take the phrase:

"I don't think the semolina texture will work very well on something that size"

A computer programmed simply to find the word "semtex" and flag up anything containing it would not flag this phrase.

A person looking for the word "sentex" would read this, realise it was gibberish and think about it ... and realise that semolina texture MAY be code for sentex in the context of the phrase.

You could produce a programme which would do that, but unless you had some idea of what to tell the program to look for (perhaps the letters s,e,m,t,e and x within 25 characters of each other in that order) you couldn't devise a program which would "read" things like a human does or, if you did, it would flag up so much stuff that you would have too much to act on.

Yes, you can write code to flag up things like that.

The problem is that if the poteintial terrorist knows their stuff it would be encrypted and some methods are impossible to break.

 

[cybertect]

Yes, you can write code to flag up things like that.

It's precisely this kind of thing that is one of the methods that anti-spam filters use.

 

[detective-boy]

Can you expand on that?.

If there was specific information that a specific plan was being discussed in a particular area then I could see a case being made for scanning all communications in that area for a defined period of time.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

If there was specific information that a specific plan was being discussed in a particular area then I could see a case being made for scanning all communications in that area for a defined period of time.

Might it be good here to make the distinction between 'directed surveillance' (what you're describing above) and 'undirected surveillance' (ie 'drag-netting')?

I've not yet seen anyone arguing against 'directed surveillance'.

What bothers most people is the idea of 'undirected surveillance', in the form of ANPR, 'scanning' of all communications and the growing number of CCTV systems and their AI interpreters.

Would you agree that the scenario you describe above would not fall foul of RIPA, while mass, undirected surveillance would?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

***Bump***

Police will get access to road pricing cameras

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:11am BST 18/07/2007

Motorists across the country will be tracked by "Big Brother" cameras intended for road pricing under police powers being drawn up in Whitehall.

The policy emerged yesterday when the Home Office announced that police in London would have "real time" access to the capital's congestion charge data.

Ministers said the move was a response to the terrorism threat.

But the Home Office inadvertently released internal discussion papers that showed it intends to expand the scheme nationwide. Officials are drafting legislation giving police access to all data used to enforce charging.

Critics of the drift to a surveillance society said the leak showed road pricing was a "Trojan horse" for more police snooping.

Under current data protection laws, police can get this data only on a case-by-case basis as part of a targeted operation.

Normally, the information is wiped clean after a few weeks if it is not required for charging purposes.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, signed a waiver certificate yesterday allowing the "bulk transfer" to the police of all the data from London's 1,500 cameras.

../cont

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nroad118.xml


More from spyblog.

 

[RhymnRzn]

terrorists are the new slavemasters?

 

[TAE]

***Bump***



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nroad118.xml


More from spyblog.

Well that was predictable!

 

[detective-boy]

My understanding is that it is NOT all data about all vehicles. What it IS is real-time information on flagged vehicles which are of interest to the police (i.e. operating in exactly the same way as the cameras at the entry points to the City of London have for years).

All that they will do is alert the police in real-time that ABC123 has just entered the CC zone at High Street. I would doubt very much whether the alert would be quick enough to enable them to find the vehicle on other cameras (e.g. Westminster's street cameras) and track it.

And if there is no flag on the vehicle already, then the police will be told nothing about it (unless they make specific justifed request as they do now).

If the police had the index number of a car which they believed was to be used in a terrorist attack, but they couldn't find it, would you not expect that they would be told if it appeared in the CC zone? I suspect U75 would be slagging off the incompetent and "thick" "plods", "filth" and "flatfoots" if it later went bang in a big way.

 

[Cobbles]

What remains unstated is the expected error rate. How many false positives and false negatives will be produced by the system? Contrary to common belief, identifying a fingerprint is not a 100% reliable process.

Rather a one in a million (trillion? gazillion?) chance of a false positive than letting some lying uninsured scumbag drive away with just a chitty requiring them to submit their documents to a police station within x days.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

My understanding is...

Well, again, and still, your 'understanding' appears to be flawed, DB.

Again, I ask you to acknowledge the distinction between 'directed surveillance' and 'undirected surveillance'.

It's pretty clear what is being implemented here.

Tony McNulty (Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety) is quoted in the Times as saying:

“The Met requires bulk ANPR data from TfL’s camera network in London specifically for terrorism intelligence purposes and to prevent and investigate such offences. The infrastructure will allow the real-time flow of data between TfL and the Met.”

That's 'bulk' data. Dragnetting. Not just 'flagged vehicles', as you appear so desperate to pretend.

Mass surveillance doesn't only become so when the information gathered is acted upon.

Even the Chief Surveillance Commissioner (Christopher Rose) acknowledges in his 'Annual Report' published a couple of days ago:

2.4

Issues that continue to be of concern to me are those which Parliament may not have envisaged: developing technology in Automatic Number Plate Recognition (‘ANPR’) continues to raise issues not envisaged by current legislation; and strategic alliances between more than one authority, formed to combine operating capacity, expertise and effectiveness, were not contemplated by the legislation as being a single authority.

...

11.3

Improvements in technology continue to enhance the capability of those charged with the responsibility of tackling crime. But, as indicated in last year’s report, the speed of change often surpasses the limitations of current legislation. With regard to Automatic Number Plate Recognition, my position is the same as that of my predecessor and I adhere to the view that legislation is necessary to resolve some issues arising from enhanced technological capability.

http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/docs1/OSC Annual Rpt 2006-07 final version.pdf

The 'current legislation' he refers to being RIPA, under which mass, undirected surveillance is illegal.

DB advocating crime. *Tsk*

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

An update to this:

Lewis Page writes in 'The Register':

It has emerged since last night's briefing that in fact the Home Office wants to give the police real-time access to all ANPR camera data as the technology is rolled out nationwide - and the notional glass wall between terror-plods and ordinary coppers would be removed. Effectively, police and spooks would then be able track any car (or, more accurately, any numberplate) around the country in close to real time.

No shit, Sherlock. Welcome to the Panopticon.

He continues...

One thing's sure: the Home Office has shown its hand now. It's safe to say that if ANPR is widely implemented, sooner or later UK officialdom in general will start using it to monitor people. Maybe not right away, but eventually the temptation will prove irresistible. Not just the spooks and terror-plods, but the taxman, Child Support Agency, headteachers at oversubscribed schools, traffic cops, repo men, bailiffs, motor insurers ... they could all prevent crimes, frauds or other naughtiness using ANPR. And do make sure your jealous lover/spouse/stalker doesn't work for one of these organisations, won't you.

Actual criminals and terrorists who know what they're doing will continue to use freshly-stolen, duplicated or otherwise 'clean' plates - maybe yours! But the rest of us may have to get a lot more law-abiding in years to come.

A 'huge' operation took place just yesterday, which clearly indicates where we're at:

Wales and the West Country declared a no-go zone for criminals (Avon and Somerset, Gwent, South Wales, Gloucestershire)

ADDED: 19/07/2007 17:09

Over 150 vehicles have been stopped, 19 people arrested and 14 vehicles seized today (Thursday, July 19, 2007) as part of Operation Utah Wales and West, a huge operation involving more than 200 police officers from four forces and the support of 40 representatives from key enforcement agencies.

More than 60,000 vehicles crossing the M4 Severn Bridge and 20,000 travelling across the M48 bridge will have been scanned by special Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) units by the end of the operation, which will alert officers to any crime the vehicle or its occupants are wanted for, from drug dealing and banned drivers to benefit cheats and rogue traders.

Officers from Avon and Somerset Police, Gwent Police, South Wales Police and Gloucestershire Police have been involved, with support from the DVLA, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), VOSA, Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), HM Revenue and Customs, and the Highways Agency.

Chief Superintendent Lawrie Lewis, in charge of the operation, said: "Police from three constabularies, working on both sides of the Severn Crossing have caught up with 19 people who had, until today, been flouting the law. We have made arrests for offences including breach of bail, theft of motor vehicle, possession of class A drugs, being in possession of an offensive weapon and fraud.

"Fourteen vehicles have been seized for offences including having no insurance and dangerous driving.

"As a consequence of one of our stops, our colleagues from the Department of Work and Pensions are now investigating two people for benefit fraud and the HMRC have also found vehicles using red diesel.

"This is not a one-off: ANPR is a vital tool used day-in, day-out throughout the region and, thanks to the success of today's operation, it is only a matter of time until we look to repeat it.

"Criminals should be aware that if they are involved in crime, whether it's Class A drug dealing or burglary, benefit fraud or driving an untaxed car, we are out looking for them.

"With ANPR, there is literally nowhere to hide – we use mobile as well as fixed units, meaning criminals can never second guess when we are watching.

"By joining up with our neighbouring forces and key support agencies, there is no escape."

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=9345&t=1&lid=3

(also reported by the BBC)

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Heh. Here's something some might find interesting - especially 'Detective Boy', since his profile here lists his interests as 'Riding very fast motorbikes very fast!'

Appian Technology, manufacturers of the ANPR system appear, for whatever reason, yesterday to have scrubbed almost all mention of the 'speeding enforcement' capabilities from their website! Gone are all the nice 'screen captures' of 'Car ABC123 is SPEEDING!!!' etc. that I posted before.

Check it out: http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q...itesearch=appian-tech.com&as_rights=&safe=off

Grab a peek at the pages 'cached' by Google while they're still there - they won't be for long!

There remains, however, a couple of lines at the bottom of the page under 'Applications / Enforcement':

The Talon ANPR system can be used to produce a violation fine on speed or red light enforcement systems. The benefit of this means that the manual process of preparing a violation fine can be replaced by an automated process, reducing the time and costs associated with dispatching fines.

..but that appears to be it. Instead, there's now reams about 'Journey Time Analysis', which sounds a lot *nicer*, wouldn't you agree?