Who's Watching You?

[MGF]

If only Parliament would be as protective of our privacy as it is of its own.

here

[TripleS]

If only Parliament would be as protective of our privacy as it is of its own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/w ... 064333.stm

It didn't work for me - page not found, it said.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Gareth]

Links need to be put in some tags for them to always work. There are two parts; the first is the 'opening' tag which includes the link address, and the second has the visible text for the link and the closing tag.

In reverse order to that it is visible in this message, the second part should have the follwing form:

BBC News link[/url]

where "BBC News link" can be any text you like. The first part looks like:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/...]

except that it contains a full and valid address for the page being linked to.


A topical example could be Man behind expenses leak revealed except that, of course, it is only the middle man who has identified himself.

[jont]

I haven't seen the specific article MGF linked, but I think there's a general principle that MPs should be bound by the same rules as normal citizens - be it privacy, expenses, or government databases. Afterall, if things like contactPoint, ID Cards etc are as secure as they make out, there's no need to have special rules for MPs, is there? And if it's not good enough for MPs, why is it good enough to inflict on the rest of us?

[MrToad]

I think it may be a reference to this story (the last minute is the relevant part) which is tied to a forthcoming BBC series.

The fact that ANPR data from cameras across the country will be linked and stored centrally is news to me.

So, to obtain a copy of every record of my journeys for the past two years do I make a request under Freedom of Information or Data Protection rules? How many people need to ask for their information before the system struggles?

[Gareth]

here

Almost right, but you need to bung the original URL in there instead of the mangled one that resulted from when you originally included the URL in your message.

[Darren]

Isn't this the system that was being put in place to enable PAYG road usage?
I guess this raises some interesting questions, such as how long is the data stored for?
Who exactly has access to it?

[jont]

I wonder if this reliance on automated technology will increase the incidence of number plate cloning/theft or simply removal. The fundamental problem with automated systems is they are only as good as the data they get. Large scale civil disobedience would soon remove any benefit the system brings.

[TripleS]

I wonder if this reliance on automated technology will increase the incidence of number plate cloning/theft or simply removal. The fundamental problem with automated systems is they are only as good as the data they get. Large scale civil disobedience would soon remove any benefit the system brings.

Yes it would, and although I usually dislike money and time and effort being wasted, when it comes to systems of this sort I look forward to the day when the people emphatically reject this 'big brother' stuff.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Red Herring]

I think it all very much depends on what the information gathered is used for. We all enjoy the relative security that living in a regulated society provides however it seems some of us are quick to then criticize how that security is provided. I hardly think the example provided in the link of the person associated with anti-war protests being questioned provided evidence of the system being abused, can anyone else give a better example?

[Porker]

The problem is not whether or not we can point to a specific example of something undesirable occurring as a result of these measures, it's a question of a reasonable fear of what the creation of this infrastructure might lead to.

The justification is always (or very often) something along the lines of security. That's a bit too easy though, isn't it? Whoever wanted less security? The problem is that in so many cases these claims do not appear to be backed up by any real substance.

In the current example, they are claimed to be useful against terrorism. Maybe they would have some uses there. But wouldn't operating an effective Visa application process also produce a few results? When I read about the proliferation of fake colleges which non-UK nationals can enrol in in order to gain entry to the UK and consider the relative ease with which these could be policed, I wonder if HMG has its priorities right. After all, what are we to make of a country that issues visas so easily that visa scammers offer a "no visa - no fee" service but is simultaneously prepared to implement enormously complex and expensive systems to monitor British subjects from cradle to grave in nearly every aspect of their lives, especially when one fix costs a few millions (or just the will to do something about it) and the other costs many billions.

regards
P.

[Red Herring]

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.

[MGF]

...In the current example, they are claimed to be useful against terrorism. Maybe they would have some uses there. But wouldn't operating an effective Visa application process also produce a few results? When I read about the proliferation of fake colleges which non-UK nationals can enrol in in order to gain entry to the UK and consider the relative ease with which these could be policed, I wonder if HMG has its priorities right.

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

I hardly think the example provided in the link of the person associated with anti-war protests being questioned provided evidence of the system being abused, can anyone else give a better example?

This is where we disagree. It is probably disingenuous to suggest that those who oppose aspects of ANPR are being reckless . The Police labelled an individual as 'suspect' for no other reason than he attended a 'peace protest'

As a concequence of this unsubstantiated labelling the individual was stopped by the Police and questioned under Anti-Terrorism legislation. To be questioned under this legislation the Police do not need to have 'reasonable suspicion.' To refuse to answer their questions is a criminal offence.

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.

[Porker]

I cannot think of an example of the abuse of ANPR (unless you count its use in persecuting those falsely accused of using the Congestion Charging zone in London as abuse). However, it's the construction of the surveillance infrastructure that has me, and I expect a lot of like-minded folks, concerned.

Once this infrastructure is in place, it can be used or misused. It's the speed with which this infrastructure seems to be being created and the potential for misuse which is concerning.

regards
P.

[Porker]

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?

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).

P.