Red Herring wrote:MGF wrote: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.
Red Herring wrote: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.
Red Herring wrote: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'.
Red Herring wrote: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.
Red Herring wrote: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.
Red Herring wrote: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.