The Obsession With Surveilence Continues...
- Thread starter Pie 1
- Start date
tobyjug said:
you're beginning to lose it, calm down.
longdog said:
I agree (see my post above). what was it you said, toby, where there was a thread discussing possible means for your execution? I do wish you well, BTW.
detective-boy said:
wishful thinking, though, even if that was the option that the government went for. MI5 doesn't go for checks and balances, does it?
I can remember at school in NZ - ANZAC day (war memorial day) where we'd all line up in rows trying not to giggle while some old ex-soldier talked about fascism and begged, pleaded, nagged, cajoled and implored us to never never ever let that happen again.
Don't put quotes around Civil Liberties detective-boy - they're a lot more important than fighting crime.
Don't put quotes around Civil Liberties detective-boy - they're a lot more important than fighting crime.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Ah, yes, this is based upon what exactly? The current thread in P&P about how they carried out 7/7 just for shits and giggles?guinnessdrinker said:
The secret service aren't exactly in the advertising buisness for some reason (there's a hint in the name), in fact they are rather stingy about talking to the press at all. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY GO FOR? Oh, no wait, i forgot your long history of working at you know where with you know who
Fucking death eater
As it is an agency of the government and as the government is ours then it should have no fucking say in the matter - it can make it's views known and then do what it is told. There are a variety of checks and balances on their activity. I have not heard of any of the elected members responsible for oversight jumping up and down so I believe they are working appropriately - but there is probably substantial scope for more.guinnessdrinker said:
This place gets more like Eats Shoots and fucking Leaves every day ...nick1181 said:
The quotation marks (don't call them quotes, it's a fucking Americanism. Quotes are things like "Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...") were intended to convey the fact that there were a number of issues joined together in the one phrase, not all of which were directly civil liberties issues but which were similar.
And don't forget that the ability to go about your business without being murdered, robbed, raped ... is probably one of the most fucking basic civil liberties and our protection is one of the most basic duties of the government.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
detective-boy said:
The right to be protected by the government is balanced by the right to be protected from the government.
I'm a fucking Kiwi, and I'll call them what I like.detective-boy said:
Not being a victim of criminals isn't a civil liberty at all and it's deliberately misleading to try to frame it as one - though very common among people wanting the police and the state to have more power. They frame it as a civil liberty in the hope of eroding the real civil libertydetective-boy said:
Murdering robbing and raping tends to be exactly what governments participate in, against their own citizenry when civil liberties are eroded.
While I come to think of it, the phrase "civil liberty" is a bit of a reframe as well... as though they're a freedom, something granted when it's appropriate, by some sort of "granter of civil liberties"... they're not civil liberties, they're civil rights. They haven't been given to us, our ancestors took them... often by force and at great cost to themselves.
detective-boy said:
Well, they're not doing a particuarly great job of upholding that one are they?
Watching us go about our business on little screens while quite often being murdered, robbed or raped. Yes.
Dicking around hours of shite footage and never rally finding those responsible. Yes
Stopping it and protecting this "most fucking basic civil liberty" No, Not really.
Absolute bollocks.nick1181 said:
I don't mind the use of ANPR systems in patrol cars, it's a useful tool and does produce results. It has the benefit that the police officers can use their discretion and can correct or ignore mis-reads. No technological solution is going to work perfectly all of the time.
One of my fears is that it will lead to a further reduction in patrols - since Gatso cameras were introduced the number of traffic patrol officers has fallen by an average of 11% across the country.
One of my fears is that it will lead to a further reduction in patrols - since Gatso cameras were introduced the number of traffic patrol officers has fallen by an average of 11% across the country.
You pay for enough people to sit and watch every screen in real time then do you? Do you fuck - in my experience of CCTV control rooms the staffing levels are no more than one operator per eight screens (and usually there are far more cameras than there are screens available as well).Pie 1 said:
"Shite footage" - sorry? What are you suggesting? That the police should direct filming so that it is up to Hollywood Blockbuster standards? They have what is available (much of which really is shite but, heh, thats life)
"Never" - you not read of any convictions which have been largely brought about on the basis of CCTV evidence then?
"No, not really" - you not aware of consistently falling crime figures over the past few years then? Of course there are areas of concern (not least of which is drug related crime) but much of what can be done to impact those concerns is outside the direct influence of the police (e.g. education / health / social services ...).
Anyways...
Oooh, high-tech
Useful for recording any seismic activity that moves cameras by, er, 20 metres or more...
(Yes, yes, I know, useful for locating where a mobile camera is now - but a sign that the article isn't thought through technically. Which is strange, because Steve Connor used to work at New Scientist and not to be stupid. Maybe it got rewritten...)
Mmmh, let's see... 35M plate reads per day, 5-year database: 64 G records, or a minumum of 2 terabytes of data+index.
Yup, if EDS gets the contract they'll have no trouble fucking this one up bigtime. You think the u75 search facility is broken?
It's not that hard to produce a listing of everywhere a given plate was snapped - though not easy enough for EDS. But what they've probably not thought of is such obvious queries as a detective wanting to know when two or more of these 17 cars were in the same place. Entire system grinds to a halt...
Edited to add: oh, and if they want to use this for evidence, not just detection, they'll need to store all the snaps. Say a 50kb JPEG is sufficient - means another database of... 3.2 petabyes. 3,200,000,000,000,000 bytes.
Edited again to add: the article does mention detecting "associated vehicles". But not whether it's just Chief Constables saying "that'd be nice, sure a computer can do that", or whether anyone has put any thought into the computing workload.
Independent article said:
Oooh, high-tech
Useful for recording any seismic activity that moves cameras by, er, 20 metres or more...
(Yes, yes, I know, useful for locating where a mobile camera is now - but a sign that the article isn't thought through technically. Which is strange, because Steve Connor used to work at New Scientist and not to be stupid. Maybe it got rewritten...)
Mmmh, let's see... 35M plate reads per day, 5-year database: 64 G records, or a minumum of 2 terabytes of data+index.
Yup, if EDS gets the contract they'll have no trouble fucking this one up bigtime. You think the u75 search facility is broken?
It's not that hard to produce a listing of everywhere a given plate was snapped - though not easy enough for EDS. But what they've probably not thought of is such obvious queries as a detective wanting to know when two or more of these 17 cars were in the same place. Entire system grinds to a halt...
Edited to add: oh, and if they want to use this for evidence, not just detection, they'll need to store all the snaps. Say a 50kb JPEG is sufficient - means another database of... 3.2 petabyes. 3,200,000,000,000,000 bytes.
Edited again to add: the article does mention detecting "associated vehicles". But not whether it's just Chief Constables saying "that'd be nice, sure a computer can do that", or whether anyone has put any thought into the computing workload.
detective-boy said:
Don't be silly, of course I don't - but if you're going to invest millions in systems to 'identify and catch criminals' then a good starting point as far as basic requirments are concerned, would be cameras with decent lenses/ccd's so you can actually see stuff - No?.
They've got them in Soho I believe.
Christ, a basic web cam from Sharsonic on TCR is better that some of that stuff they realise to the press.
detective-boy said:
Absolutely true, and repeated cookie-cutter style throughout the world and probably always has been.
We're talking about things like :
freedom from torture,
freedom from slavery and forced labour,
the right to privacy,
the right to a fair trial,
freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly,
freedom of the press
Totalitarians (like you) throughout the world routinely try to undermine these "for the good of the people". George Bush's latest embarrassment over wiretapping his own people is to "protect them".
Bureaucracy and power always seeks more power. One of the recurrent themes of the last 5 years has been the sustained and relentless attack on the list above "for people's safety"... but actually, it's the bureaucratic power-grab that's the greatest danger.
The American Constitution is there to protect the people from the Government. The people that put it together knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what the dangers are. Whether or not this makes any difference in the current climate is debateble - but it stands as a reminder, that government (and their instruments) are not inherently trustworthy.
detective-boy said:
wishful thinking and flagrant naivety. how do you know the checks and balances are being observed as everything is secret. tony blair and a few other elected bods may or may not know what's going on, but how do we know they're respecting the rules?
Bob_the_lost said:Ah, yes, this is based upon what exactly? The current thread in P&P about how they carried out 7/7 just for shits and giggles?
The secret service aren't exactly in the advertising buisness for some reason (there's a hint in the name), in fact they are rather stingy about talking to the press at all. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY GO FOR? Oh, no wait, i forgot your long history of working at you know where with you know who
Fucking death eater
he!
what are you on about? have you been smoking?You would not need the pictures to use the data as evidence, though it would be of significantly less value without (as ANPR is still prone to misread, especially with lots of non-standard number plates still about). Many of the ANPR systems do not actually record pictures anyway, they simply "read" the number plate and create a computer record of time / date / place.laptop said:
The "associated vehicles" bit I see as meaning that an officer could look at the database to see what other vehicles were logged a few minutes either side of the one of interest, simple enough to do, even with existing computer systems (e.g. the PNC). This would help if the suspect vehicle was being accompanied by previously unknown ones belonging to the suspects.
I think the system is probably a bit too optimistic as the next step - I would like to see ANPR technology stabilised by more extensive use of the current set-up (e.g. using mobile ANPR with a patrol a short distance ahead to intercept any flagged vehicles (and immediately sort out any discrepancies in the reading). This would not provide such a large database of information but would, I believe, be a far more PROACTIVE use of the technology and be of less impact in civil liberties.
How long before the crims come up with a low-tech cheat for this do you reckon (given that the thumbprint-locked IPAQ lasted about a week before falling victim to a gummy bear and some wax, and you can buy counter-devices to most of the stuff presently in use by the cops - radar-detectors, license-plate covers etc). I give it about a fortnight, after which only Joe Public will be being monitored by the system.
You are probably referring to a Notice of Intended Prosecution. s.1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. A driver / registered keeper must be either warned a prosecution is intended or served with a summons within 14 days of the offence. The offences this applies to are dangerous / careless driving (or cycling!); failing to comply with traffic signs and directions; leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position and speeding.1927 said:
There is an exception if an accident results, then no notice is needed. The Notice can be given orally at the time of the offence (and routinely is in cases where you are stopped, spoken to and reported).
Service of the notice can be personal, by leaving it at last known address or by recorded delivery to last known address (the latter applies even if the notice never actually reaches the person - it is still deemed "served").
The defence have to prove non-compliance as there is a presumption of compliance in subsection 1(3) otherwise.
Secondly, with any "summary only" offence (i.e. one triable only in the Magistrates Court), proceedings must be commenced by the "laying of an information" (i.e. an application for a summons or warrant) within 6 months from the date of the offence (s.127 Magistrates Courts Act 1980). The summons itself may actually be served outside the period but, in reality, it is usually read as summons served in that period. Any excessive delay would be likely to lead to the charges being dismissed as an abuse of process.
Publicly funded systems are usually pretty good, at least to start with, though the fact that they are often created with "start-up" type project funding means that sometimes the need for upgrading / maintenance etc is not fully considered.Pie 1 said:
Also, like any publicly funded stuff, there are restrictions on how much we the taxpayers are willing to pay into such systems - but quality is definitely better than quantity in most cases.
Much of what is released is not publicly funded stuff though, and when it comes to companies (or individual shopkeepers, etc) spending money on their systems the quality is enormously variable, from state-of-the-art to a 23-year old balck and white camera, with dirty lens, knocked out of position and obscured by "Free Offer" signs, attached to the oldest video recorder in the world with a single elderly VHS tape on a continuous loop, so devoid of magnetic coating you can see through it!!
You will be glad to know that the Information Commissioner agrees that a system designed to identify people must be ofsufficient quality to achieve that task - it is one of the eight principles of the Data Protection Act Code of Practice.
You know me from a couple of posts and you feel able to tell me that I am a totalitarian. Well you're (again) talking fucking bollocks. I am not.nick1181 said:
The rights you list are repeated worldwide as the rights we have as individuals as against the state - not against other individuals or against corporations, but against the state. And that is as it should be - they are the rules which we have set for them to act on our behalf.
But we also need a "right to life", etc. as against fellow citizens because there are some bad people about who we, as a society, wish to prevent from preying upon the vulnerable amongst us (or at least those of who live in the real world realise that there are). This means that is the government is to proactively protect our right to life (etc) we (through them) need to make laws and have a system for enforcing them (police / Courts / etc). Unfortunately this enforcement also infringes on the rights of the suspects and so the ONLY possible answer is for a balance to be struck.
Why are you so keen to ignore the need for us to protect the vulnerable amongst us from those who would prey upon them when you are so keen to protect us from our own servants? Surey they are not mutually exclusive positions?
Similar threads
