UK towns move to extend abusive license plate surveillance grid
Taras sez, "British local authorities are queuing up to connect their CCTV cameras to a national system which tracks cars by their registration plates.
Any camera, if high enough resolution, can be adapted to work with the software. The Information Commissioner is concerned, as ever, but under-resourced and basically powerless.
People who have taken part in anti-war rallies are already having their cars stopped by Anti-Terror Units for no good reason and being questioned under threat of arrest."
John Catt found himself on the wrong side of the ANPR system. He regularly attends anti-war demonstrations outside a factory in Brighton, his home town.Camera grid to log number plates (Thanks, Taras!)It was at one of these protests that Sussex police put a "marker" on his car. That meant he was added to a "hotlist".
This is a system meant for criminals but John Catt has not been convicted of anything and on a trip to London, the pensioner found himself pulled over by an anti-terror unit.
"I was threatened under the Terrorist Act. I had to answer every question they put to me, and if there were any questions I would refuse to answer, I would be arrested. I thought to myself, what kind of world are we living in?"
the latest
latest episodes
this is a good thing. Many great things came out of England over the years. There has been a shameful drought for quite a while. A critical mass of oppression is building, something remarkable is going to hatch out. Interesting times indeed.
I live in Brighton, so I know that there is a part of this story which isn't being told. During Mayday the Smash EDO campaign (the anti-war protesters) staged a rally. And whilst I certainly believe in their right to rally I dispute their right to trash the town, the whole day they went around creating mayhem.
I do not dispute that this man is probably innocent, and should under no circumstances be spied upon by the state. But I do dispute the means by which the campaign he rallies for are conducting their protests. They garner very little sympathy for their cause when the local residents, and students like me see them as a group of hippies on a power trip.
EDO is a military firm. Yes. They provide the MoD goods. Which are later resold. The firm itself does not conduct these transactions, yet this group chooses to single them out and blame them for the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whilst I support the creation of a Palestinian state, I most certainly do not believe this can be achieved by throwing bricks and paint at MacDonalds (which they targeted in their last Mayday rally). Whilst MacDonalds may be a horrible place to eat with a company with poor ethics, I see a very weak link to their self professed cause. Oh and I nearly failed to mention. Their 'protest' which was meant to be against EDO, did not even make it near EDO, instead they chose to rampage around town.
If you are interested in more information about all of the things that I have mentioned (or you doubt my facts) here is the local newspaper's coverage of the protest.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4340279.Liveblog__Brighton_Smash_EDO_protest/
(I'm sorry it may sound a bit ranty)
http://www.theargus.co.uk/photos/ourphotos/argusphotos2009/smashedo/
Anyone in the UK, there is a TV programme about this, Monday night, 9pm, BBC 2 (and afterwards on iPlayer).
I hope this means that everyone in Britain will soon have one of those James-Bond-style rotating license plates!
@#1 Tak: I like your glass-half-full optimism, but I'm worried about which side will hatch this remarkable something. Hopefully England's next great contribution isn't the shiny new preferred way to run countries.
I realise this may go against the grain here, but ANPR is actually a fairly effective tool.
The Metropolitan Police has 4 dedicated ANPR teams, and nearly all traffic cars have them. The success rate of cars stopped by ANPR is extremely high - more than 30% of stops result in a fixed penalty notice, thousands of stolen cars are recovered, and any people arrested have a high likelihood of being successfully convicted, whether they were stopped due to a prior offence, or for evidence uncovered during the stop.
The number of numberplates flagged in the manner mentioned in the story is extremely low as compared to the numberplates in the system for a known offence - no insurance, tax etc. There are very few "innocents" in the system.
I don't know much about the ANPR system in use outside of the Met, but there are fairly good procedures in place to stop abuse of the system. They need to be formalised in law, but I think the ACPO is pushing towards this getting done.
It would be a disaster if the ANPR data could flow the other way - from the police systems to the overbearing local councils and other bodies though.
"I don't know much about the ANPR system in use outside of the Met, but there are fairly good procedures in place to stop abuse of the system. They need to be formalised in law, but I think the ACPO is pushing towards this getting done."
Pardon me while I laugh. "Fairly good procedures" - erm, like what? I like the "they need to be formalised in law" bit. Damn right. But will they? Also, can I apply to know if my car is on a "hotlist"? I suspect such an enquiry would be met with "Dear Mr Dodds, in officialese, p*ss off".
The trouble with all these infringements on people's liberties is that they can be justified by the alleged good caused but not demolished by the resulting drift into totalitarianism. This is because in and of themselves they are not a definition of totalitarianism, it is only when taken en masse that such a drift becomes obvious.
And is a 30% hit rate satisfactory? What about the innocent 70%? Besides, a fixed penalty notice suggests tyres that are bald, 3 miles over the speed limit, a brake light not working etc rather than a boot full of armalites and a map of London's sewers.
The police and politicians need to realise that people are sick to death of having to put up with crap like this in the name of anti-terrorist measures. The myth of a terrorist around every corner is just that, a myth.
I don't know if any U.S. citizens have noticed or not, but we have cameras on almost every intersection (that I've ever seen). I never hear anyone mention them, which is very odd to me. I just assume they are for tracking license plates.
I don't understand:
What's the problem with a grid that monitors abusive license plates?
What am I missing? Is this a freedom of expression thing?
Nemesys, I believe what you think are cameras are actually the IR triggers that allow emergency vehicles to switch traffic lights, so they can proceed through intersections with a smaller chance of hitting cross traffic. There are cameras at various intersections, just usually the intersections with more traffic and/or accidents, not all of them by any means.
lots of styles
http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2009/02/red-light-camera.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_camera
what would REALLY work is issuing licence plates with RFID tags. Then you could have readers buried in the roads everywhere and track EVERYTHING all the time. You can't install RFID in the cars themselves so easily, but the plate remains government property so you could make it compulsory and universal overnight. Sensors that detect vehicles without chips could be connected to cameras and an auto-alert system to bring security forces. A little random sampling testing thrown in to assure basic fear.
Of course any vehicle registering as speeding, out of bounds or operation time limits must be the responsibility of the owner and his family. Offences could be tried by a computer-judge and non-payment of fines or repeat violations could mean your insurance becomes void, your health insurance is invalidated and your children are denied access to public schools (until they can be picked up by the State Orphange anyways).
#8: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. Any power given to a group of people without adequate safeguards is absolutely certain to be heavily abused. And the police are notorious for choosing to overlook their own infractions, for choosing the loosest possible interpretation of the law for their actions, and the most stringent interpretation for the actions of others, especially those who are critical of the police the government or who are just generally too liberal for the cops to be comfortable with. (ie. political activists)
any people arrested have a high likelihood of being successfully convicted, whether they were stopped due to a prior offence, or for evidence uncovered during the stop.
These are the moments that I remember why we fought the Revolutionary War.
we have cameras on almost every intersection
They detect vehicles waiting at the intersection so that they can coordinate the traffic lights. Here, where we have left turn lights at most intersections, you could wait at an empty intersection for five minutes if the detector didn't override the light cycle.
"The myth of a terrorist around every corner is just that, a myth."
no it isn't, you're just confused by the uniform.
The thing that jumps out at me with this story isn't the camera / plate-tagging thing — it's the lack of 5th-amendment-style protections and the requirement to answer questions on the spot or go to jail.
PATRICK DODDS @ 6: I agree with almost everything you say, but you're wrong on one point. The myth of a terrorist around every corner is NOT just a myth. The myth that a terrorist is around every corner IS terrorism. Until people come to realize that the government is using fear to achieve their draconian goals (pretty much the definition of terrorism), the terrorists will continue to win. Ironic that the two groups that consistently seem to benefit from any terrorist attack are always the terrorists and the military-industrial complex.
NEMESYS23 @ 7: The difference in the US is that, at least in theory, the cameras are not used to track movements. They use low-res cameras that can't resolve license plate numbers, so they should not be a problem.
Of course, theory and practice are different, but I tend to believe the theory on this one. If the cameras could resolve the LP#, I suspect that they would be used to catch child molesters and the like, and that the success would be trumpted on the evening news every time it happened (as it presumably is in England whenever these cameras are actually used for their intended purpose while they ignore the police using them to harrass innocent people).
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/communications/0,39044192,61974266,00.htm
http://www.goldentrianglenews.com/articles/2009/05/07/shelby_promoter/news/news3.txt
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/04/tag-texas-cars-with-rfids-i-couldnt.html
"we have cameras on almost every intersection"
Some do coordinate traffic, but others are indeed focused on your plates to catch people running red lights or speeding. They send you a lovely letter with a fine, a grainy photo of your plate and a photo of you (and the expression you were wearing when you decided to gas it on yellow). I used to live in Boulder, CO and they are on every major intersection there. That crazy city even has unmarked photo radar vans all over that clock you for speeding (again a lovely fine gets sent to you with your portrait of you and your plate).
The funny thing about the photo radar vans was when the state of Colorado was forced to sue the city of Boulder to get rid of them. The result was that Boulder could keep their precious unmarked vans parked everywhere, but now an officer was required to sit inside of it and literally do nothing.
I got so many of those f*ing tickets when lived there.
It sounds like the Boulder city council would be right at home in England.
I believe that ours have to be clearly identified if they're for monitoring red light runners. At least, in nine years here, I've never met anyone who's gotten a ticket because of a camera. Maybe they only enforce it for Canadian plates.
@Patrick Dodds
Again, I don't know about other forces, but the Met have not stated that ANPR is related to terrorism. It is a tool used for all offences - it's you that has linked my comments and this story to terrorism.
30% fixed penalty notice, 12% arrests, 5% cars seized, 4% drugs found, 0.1% firearms found, in fact a positive result in 75% of the stops.
A significant proportion, upwards of 80%, of these stops are the result of a known offence (e.g. no tax, no MOT, registered stolen car). These are no brainers - it is highly likely that the numberplate is on a car driven by someone who is breaking the law.
Why shouldn't the police be stopping people that, assuming there is no error in the data, have committed an offence? It's low hanging fruit.
The remaining 20% are made up of a number of different types - numberplates that have been believe to be involved with crimes, and being flagged from other intelligence as in the story.
It's an effective tool - most of the data regarding tax, MOT, and insurance is already held on databases, and ANPR simply assists police in identifying the cars.
So, if you want people who break the law to continue to do so, and for the police to rely on random stops, intuition, and the chance of seeing someone breaking the law with their own eyes, then so be it.
@ Antinous
"any people arrested have a high likelihood of being successfully convicted, whether they were stopped due to a prior offence, or for evidence uncovered during the stop.
These are the moments that I remember why we fought the Revolutionary War."
What do you mean by that?
What do you mean by that?
Here in the US of A, we take a dim view of illegal search and seizure. Using a traffic stop as an excuse to go on a fishing expedition in someone's car is neither legal nor welcome. Speaking of which, BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I want the police to know where abusive license plates are, at all times.
It's either that or keep them locked up. This is a much more cost-effective solution.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Entertainment/musician+Allison+Crowe+deported+from+over+visa/1621088/story.html
In other news, most of the people who survived World War Two are now dead.
@Antinous
I thought that UK law was much tighter regarding probable cause that US - I certainly read more stories about legal challenges in the US subsequent to traffic stops. That might just be due to the UK's culture and apathy though.
There's a fairly good correlation between uninsured, un-taxed, un-MOTed cars and other offences. A search would only be carried out if there was probable cause, or on the most part because the police are given consent. You can say no, most people don't.
Importantly, when something is taken to trial from an ANPR stop, it is more likely to result in a conviction. It's much better than with random stops, where quite frequently fault will be found with the evidence gathering.
Either way, I think that the issue of illegal searches is separate to ANPR. The UK certainly has a big problem with abuse of section 44, something I can attest to after being stopped over 12 times in a year, once because I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt and it was "too cold"..
Don't get me wrong - there are a huge number of things that I think do invade our privacy and don't give us anything back. It's a fine line. I think ANPR, as in use by the police at this time, gives us more back that it takes.
This story makes me rather uncomfortable.
The story states that the network will "log car number plates". Given the ubiquity of these cameras, what's stopping the police from knowing where any car is at any given moment?
As far as I'm concerned, that is a gross invasion of privacy.
As an aside, why is CCTV in public places totally closed-circuit? It's a public service, so why can't the public view these cameras as well?
@ #29 (CyberGibbons, May 24, 2009 12:42am):
The point is only partially about the manner in which this technology is utilised at the moment. What you say may be true. It might be that the overwhelming majority of cars stopped because of ANPR are committing some offence and that our roads are safer because of it.
The problem is that this is not necessarily how the technology will be used in the future, and Cory's original post is a perfect example of this. What we have is the police using traffic technology not only to track, monitor and stop someone on a matter that is completely unrelated to traffic offences or road safety, but using it to monitor and stop someone who has not committed any crime, and where there seems to be no evidence suggesting that he was in the process of committing a crime.
It is this kind of violation of civil liberties that is problematic. What it suggests is an increasing tendency for data to be shared between government agencies, and increasing use of technological systems to pursue citizens for matters that are completely unrelated to the issues that are used to justify the existence of those systems in the first place.
Furthermore, the stopping of citizens who are clearly already known to the police, but where there is nothing to suggest a crime has been committed or is about to be committed is hugely sinister. It is fear-mongering against people who are innocent of all criminality, and it is not acceptable.
It is with the gradual, but significant, increase of incidents like this that governments are able to sneak increasingly totalitarian means of surveillance and social control into practice right in front of our eyes. The slow introduction of surveillance technology and the increasing use of new technology and laws to scare people into behaving in a certain way, even when there is nothing to suggest they have criminal intent, is precisely how the Stasi and the Gestapo came to hold the vice-like grip that they did over their respective societies. All too often, people do not realise what is happening until it is too late.
As Patrick Dodds posted above, it is the simultaneous creep of many different totalitarian systems into our lives that is most problematic. On a case by case basis, the government can present what look like half-decent arguments, but overall, the picture is a worrying one. Where the legal status of these systems remains indeterminate that is even more troubling.
If innocent people were not being shot dead on the tube and terrorism was not being used as a pretext for sending British citizens abroad to kill and be killed, then people might be willing to grant the government the benefit of the doubt. These things are happening though, and it is very important that they are documented, discussed, and campaigned on now, because if we all wait until we personally begin to feel the effects, we will already have lost our society.
bwahahahah!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/24/raf-military-files-stolen-blackmail
Here in North London, I was talking to my 70 year-old neighbours this weekend and the conversation turned to things like ID cards and this licence plate thing. They said they'd been staunch Labour supporters all their lives, but this time around they'll be voting independent. They have come to hate all party politics. "In 1900, the Labour movement was a real movement - they had the right idea. What is it now? Nothing. Nothing. None of the parties mean anything at all."
Either the coming election will see a terribly low turnout and the Conservatives get in with a slim majority, or there will be a massive turn-out and most MPs will be independents like Esther Rantzen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8011103.stm
As far as I know, the rights of the police to search a vehicle after an ANPR stop depend entirely on the reason for the stop. If the vehicle has no tax/insurance, I don't believe the police have the right to search the vehicle; that would be a fishing expedition. If, on the other hand, they've stopped the vehicle because it's flagged as belonging to a wanted armed-robber (as happened recently), they have every right to search the vehicle.
It sounds like there is more of an issue with how freely vehicles are added to the list than with the stop procedures themselves. If the police slapped hidden radio beacons on cars they wanted to target, instead of using ANPR, the problems would be the same. ANPR, therefore, is not the problem.
Personally, I would welcome a very widespread system of control gates with number plate checks for road tax and insurance. It would be simple enough to put systems in place to prevent the tracking of vehicles through the system - or at least, to make it simpler just to slap a GPS tracker on your car...
Daemon @12, re. attempt at jocularity @8:
I have to spell it out, eh?Punctuate that sentence differently: UK towns move to extend 'abusive license plate' surveillance grid.
Not clear enough? So let's reword it: UK towns move to extend abusive grid of license plate surveillance.
It kinda loses its punch by the third time you have to explain it.
I'm writing this anonymously because I am someone the British police do have an interest in, since I have to sign the sex offender register. In my work I drive all over the UK and not once have I had any attention as a result of ANPR. In any case, never mind my car, if they wanted to they could track me through mobile phone signals - far more effective since I could loan my car to someone else. My experience of British police is that they are overwhelmingly professional, but it does anger and concern me that an innocent protestor should be stopped in this way. I am pretty certain I am not routinely tracked, though I could see how a case could be made for it - I suppose they know they have bigger priorities than to chase people who do not cause them problems. I WAS once stopped, but it had nothing to do with surveillance; the young policeman admitted he was making random stops because his chief constable wanted quotas filling - he just happened to pull out from a lay-by behind me having stopped his previous victim; I'm no lawyer but I strongly suspect this was illegal. But because I'm no lawyer I let it pass - Americans' easily digested constitutional rights do have a value, though I know which country I would rather be living my life quietly in. I wouldn't worry if I was being tracked, unless I was being unjustifiably harassed, and I never have been. Personally I support ANPR in principle. It does catch a lot of unlicensed, untaxed and unsafe drivers and cars, and people up to no good. Apart from individual abuses such as the ageing protestor, what does concern me is the leeching out of police style powers in recent years to people without the professionalism of the police, such as local authorities. They are police powers and they should remain with the police. And where they are abused by the police on innocents then it's right that a strong spotlight be shone on it by, for example, this blog.