Who's Watching You?

[MGF]

Do you have any evidence that illegal immigrants are a significant cause of crime? Or is illegal immigration more worrying than crime itself?

Have there not been a number of high profile cases of the former in recent months?

A significant number? Or significant because it is in the media? The single biggest reason for illegal immigration is to work. I don't see any evidence that the crime rate amongst illegal immigrants is any higher than for those who are here legally. (Although illegal immigrants may well be at greater risk of being the victims of crime). Of course it would be nice if we could prevent all illegal immigration in the same way as it would be nice if we could prevent all crime. But it is hardly realistic.

Illegal immigration could be less worrying, as worrying or more worrying than crime en masse. It doesn't mean that it can be ignored, as at least one Home Secretary has found to his cost. (Specifically, with regard to the deportation of those convicted of crime in the UK, a substantial proportion of whom were found to be here illegally in the first place)

Illegal immigration hasn't been ignored just as crime has also not been ignored. Is it not just the way the gullible interpret media reports?

[Red Herring]

I don't want to live in a society where the Police can stop and interrogate people merely because the Police have labelled them as a 'suspicious'.

I define my citizenship, in part, by the freedom I have to move around my country unmolested by agents of the state.

It is also a waste of taxpayer's money to fund such violations of personal liberty that are hardly productive in terms of crime detection.

Furhermore I have an issue with the state recording my movements in my car for two years on the offchance that if I am suspected of commiting an offence in the future the data may prove useful to the Police.

Interference with personal liberty by the state begins with reasonable suspicion of involvement in crime. And nothing less.

Unfortunately MGF you already do, and have done so since the beginning of modern policing. Virtually all police investigation begins with a "reasonable suspicion" that allows them to stop and question individuals and to search for evidence. ANPR is simply another tool that allows them to be more selective about how they spend their time, so in effect it makes your police service more efficient and effective. You could even argue that it's use reduces the risk that you will be stopped unnecessarily as they will concentrate on vehicles that have an information marker against them, rather then perhaps just stopping vehicles randomly (or because the occupants look suspicious if you want to go off on the off topic immigration debate)

Details of your personal activity is already recorded by many organisations, for example banks, telephone companies, travel agencies etc etc... The recording of registration numbers on vehicles not currently suspected of any offence is key to ANPR led investigation and I'm sure you will appreciate I am not about to go into the detail on a public forum, however i can say that the use of ANPR technology is certainly very productive in terms of crime detection and reduction.

I'm glad you mentioned congestion charging because that is an excellent example of system abuse. The reality is that ANPR systems are to unreliable and to easily avoided to be a fair and appropriate tool for such use. The police use of ANPR leads to a reasonable suspicion which is promptly investigated, quite often then establishing that the individual is entirely innocent and they are back on their way immediately. For example a vehicle alerts with no tax, an officer stops it, discovers that the driver bought the vehicle (and tax) the day before and sends it on it's way (and quite often it wouldn't even be stopped if the system also indicates very recent new insurance, the assumption being that a driver who buys insurance probably buys tax...) Unfortunately the commercial use of ANPR is financially led and the temptation is to have a simple system in place that "detects" possible transgressors and then automatically enforces without any further investigation. This crude use of ANPR means that the majority comply with the rules (they do) however anybody determined to avoid it can and often at the expense of the innocent. The TFL congestion charging alone is responsible for a massive increase in number plate thefts which in turn frustrates all kinds of other policing activity. What is far more worrying is the ease with which organisations such as TFL and your local supermarket can access your personal data held by the DVLA so that they can send you supposed fines. Now that's the real abuse......

[TripleS]

I think we could all come up with various suggestions as to how we could improve the security of our nation with regard to immigration, and you certainly won't get an argument from me over your observations on visas, however I don't think it unreasonable to ask for an example of where ANPR systems have been abused if we are going to promote a discussion on public surveillance. The use of ANPR covers a wide spectrum of policing activities and is capable to impacting on all nature of vehicle enabled crime, and to dismiss it, or to encourage wholesale public contempt it it's use, is slightly reckless.

Well then perhaps I'm reckless, but I agree with Porker's feelings about this. It's all very well for offialdom to tell us it's directed against crime and terrorism, and it's for our benefit and we have nothing to fear from it. I don't see it that way.

IMHO governments - not just ours, but apparently many governments around the world - are adopting these policies of ever more comprehensive surveillance and monitoring and control, supported by massive data bases, simply because the technology has become available to them, but it looks to me as if they are out of control in their use of it. and we, as normal private citizens, are going to be increasingly controlled by it all.

Quite frankly I do not feel reassured by the way things are developing. To me it is giving a distinctly uncomfortable feel to life, and anyone who cares to dismiss that as a worthless emotive view can do so if they wish. It is feeling as if we are increasingly being regarded as mere objects with numbers, to be marshalled and regulated by an all-seeing body or force, and the whole thing is quite de-humanising; I'm quite sure of that, and it is not acceptable. The question of what to do about it is another matter, but I remain totally opposed to the way the government is adopting and deploying all this stuff. For what it is worth, I am quite determined that I will not co-operate with it, and whatever follows from that will simply have to happen.

If anyone cares to regard my stance as reckless they are perfectly free to do so, and they might as well say it, but I still believe the mass of ordinary people will eventually reject this particular use of technology in favour of something a bit more traditional and human. I certainly hope so, but in the meantime it is a fact that the government is worrying me much more than crime and terrorism.

Best wishes all,
Dave - a 'reckless' one.

[TripleS]

I don't want to live in a society where the Police can stop and interrogate people merely because the Police have labelled them as a 'suspicious'.

I define my citizenship, in part, by the freedom I have to move around my country unmolested by agents of the state.

It is also a waste of taxpayer's money to fund such violations of personal liberty that are hardly productive in terms of crime detection.

Furhermore I have an issue with the state recording my movements in my car for two years on the offchance that if I am suspected of commiting an offence in the future the data may prove useful to the Police.

Interference with personal liberty by the state begins with reasonable suspicion of involvement in crime. And nothing less.

Agreed. Well said, David.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

I don't want to live in a society where the Police can stop and interrogate people merely because the Police have labelled them as a 'suspicious'.

I define my citizenship, in part, by the freedom I have to move around my country unmolested by agents of the state.

It is also a waste of taxpayer's money to fund such violations of personal liberty that are hardly productive in terms of crime detection.

Furhermore I have an issue with the state recording my movements in my car for two years on the offchance that if I am suspected of commiting an offence in the future the data may prove useful to the Police.

Interference with personal liberty by the state begins with reasonable suspicion of involvement in crime. And nothing less.

Unfortunately MGF you already do, and have done so since the beginning of modern policing. Virtually all police investigation begins with a "reasonable suspicion" that allows them to stop and question individuals and to search for evidence. ANPR is simply another tool that allows them to be more selective about how they spend their time, so in effect it makes your police service more efficient and effective.

With respect this is a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no need for the Police to have 'reasonable suspicion' in order to stop search and interrogate under anti-terrorism legislation. The combination of this legislation and ANPR technology will lead to more unnecessary violations of people's liberty. The case in the programme is a prime example of guilt by association. Labelling someone as suspicious is not the same as being able to substantiate one's suspicion.

You could even argue that it's use reduces the risk that you will be stopped unnecessarily as they will concentrate on vehicles that have an information marker against them, rather then perhaps just stopping vehicles randomly (or because the occupants look suspicious if you want to go off on the off topic immigration debate)

You could argue that but this presupposes that the 'marker' is based on reasonable suspicion of a vehicle or its driver being involved in a crime. This is not necessarily the case as the programme showed.

Details of your personal activity is already recorded by many organisations, for example banks, telephone companies, travel agencies etc etc...

But not by the Police. I can switch off my mobile phone if I don't want to be tracked or purchase a pre-pay phone to avoid the same. The Police can only access this data where there is evidence of crime. With the ANPR data they keep this on file 'just in case'.

The recording of registration numbers on vehicles not currently suspected of any offence is key to ANPR led investigation and I'm sure you will appreciate I am not about to go into the detail on a public forum, however i can say that the use of ANPR technology is certainly very productive in terms of crime detection and reduction.

A curfew may also be productive in crime prevention as would be many other violations of personal liberty but I don't want to live in that kind of society. Again you misrepresent ANPR by pointing to evidence of its appropriate use as being productive. Stopping, searching and interrogating people because they are driving a vehicle associated with peace protests at which there have been minor criminal damage and obstruction offences is hardly productive in the detection of crime.

The TFL congestion charging alone is responsible for a massive increase in number plate thefts which in turn frustrates all kinds of other policing activity.

And ANPR recording data for two years wont have the same effect? Jont has also suggested using a false number plate and I have to admit I am seriously considering it myself. This use of ANPR data will no doubt lead to an increase in false number plates as does the congestion charge.

What is far more worrying is the ease with which organisations such as TFL and your local supermarket can access your personal data held by the DVLA so that they can send you supposed fines. Now that's the real abuse......

Why is it more abusive to identify the registered keeper of a vehicle to recover an alleged debt or fine (especially by an authority such as TFL)?

In this case the data is only accessed where there is a need. With ANPR the Police want to keep the data regardless of need on the off-chance it might prove useful to them. Furthermore RK details don't track an individual's movements which is the biggest violation of personal liberty. The Police are using ANPR to put people under a crude form of surveillance 'just in case'.


To conclude. I am not opposed to ANPR or the 'marking' of suspicious vehicles. However we need to return to the principle of 'reasonable suspicion' and not use anti-terror legislation to bypass this necessity. I am opposed to the storing of data by the Police for two years. If a Police investigation by way of operating ANPR equipment identifies my vehicle and it is unrelated to suspicious behaviour then that record should be destroyed. I understand the benefits of the Police having this data but don't believe the violation of my personal liberty justifies this benefit.

[Red Herring]

There seems to be an awful lot of concerns around the use and storage of ANPR data and I honestly believe that most of them are unfounded. The police do not use anti-terrorism laws routinely, and certainly not in connection with ANPR data. I know nothing about the incident quoted in the original link, but i do know enough about police procedure to know that to form a view from a one sided account from the individual concerned would leave me in an extremely vulnerable position.
The Police use ANPR data as part of many investigations, but they know enough about it's strengths and weaknesses to know that it always needs to be supported by further investigation and evidence. If you are innocent or not involved in the investigation then you really should not be concerned, if anything the recording of your data assists the police and if anything else that is not an unreasonable request to make of any citizen. The danger comes when ANPR information is mis-understood and not investigated. I can give you a personal example.

I friend of mine works at a local supermarket, the car park of which has an ANPR system to record the registration numbers of vehicles entering and leaving. He asked to borrow my motorcycle trailer so one morning I drove to the car park with the trailer on the back of my car and attached it to the rear of his car before leaving without it. He then drove home that evening with the trailer. Two weeks later I received a letter from an enforcement firm telling me that I had overstayed the maximum three hours in the car park (the letter quoted the exact entry and exit times), and demanded a £70 penalty. Now I do accept that I shouldn't have left my number plate on the trailer, but this did seem a little steep so knowing what I do about ANPR systems I went and had a look at theirs. It basically relied on two IR (Infra red) cameras with no supporting overview cameras, and they were positioned in such a way that they could easily miss quite a large percentage of vehicles. It was basically a rock bottom cheap system. I wrote to the enforcement agency pointing out the error of their ways and never heard anything again, which to me is a clear indication that they are working on the principal that a cheap system producing occasional fines that unsuspecting punters generally pay is more economic than an expensive accurate system that captures good evidence. What realy annoyed me was that based on this unreliable evidence they had been able to obtain my personal details from the DVLA and make a completely unwarranted demand on me. To me that is an example of abuse of ANPR systems.

[Gareth]

What realy annoyed me was that based on this unreliable evidence they had been able to obtain my personal details from the DVLA and make a completely unwarranted demand on me. To me that is an example of abuse of ANPR systems.

Somewhat off-topic ... many housing estate supermarkets were built on the premise that they would become a hub for a range of services and so included a number of small shop units as well. I've noticed a number of times how, over the years, those supermarkets have expanded and taken over those small shops so that the people using the car-park are only customers of the supermarkets. About the same time, barriers appeared at the entrances to the car-parks blocking their use at other times.