FindernRam Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Being a bit of a fan of crime drama like "Vera", "Midsummer Murders" and real life cops stuff like "Interceptors", I see load of references to ANPR data. Being a lawful person in the main, I'm not too bothered about big brother knowing where I am, and it could be useful if my car is ever nicked; but I wonder what data is held, by whom, and how long for? Also who has access to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 What you done? C'mon, no snitches here. Prison rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted March 30, 2021 Author Share Posted March 30, 2021 Well I "may" have gone through TTLs on red occasionally, tailing a line of stuff, but that's about it ?...Maybe! No I was just curious. Daughter was nearly a victim of some cloned plates insurance thing once, but police soon cleared her based on photo evidence, but I think that was just ordinary camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrisoner Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 https://www.npcc.police.uk/FreedomofInformation/ANPR.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoetheRam Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 4 hours ago, FindernRam said: Being a bit of a fan of crime drama like "Vera", "Midsummer Murders" and real life cops stuff like "Interceptors", I see load of references to ANPR data. Being a lawful person in the main, I'm not too bothered about big brother knowing where I am, and it could be useful if my car is ever nicked; but I wonder what data is held, by whom, and how long for? Also who has access to it? "Scary" version? They can probably tell you where your car is within a 30 mile radius right now, much less if you live in an urban area, who owns it, what colour it is, what trim levels it has, taxed, MOT'd, insured, chassis number, where it was first registered, how many miles it did last year... pretty much everything about the vehicle. They can hold it for as long as they like and it's probably been sold off to the highest bidder and someone in the Albanian mafia is driving around London with a cloned plate (if you own a Range Rover or anything German or quick). Some Chinese/American/Russian organisation is probably mining all that information as we type, and factoring it all in to some algorithm to target you with adverts/news/disinformation/information to get your money or to coerce you to behave in a certain way. All without you realising. But it's really nothing to worry about. (No sarcasm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 3 hours ago, FindernRam said: Well I "may" have gone through TTLs on red occasionally, tailing a line of stuff, but that's about it ?...Maybe! No I was just curious. Daughter was nearly a victim of some cloned plates insurance thing once, but police soon cleared her based on photo evidence, but I think that was just ordinary camera. I read that as "taking a line of stuff". In which case I applaud your steady hands whilst driving. Presumably that's why you keep hold of your cash notes?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything. It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago. The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state. And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate. Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago. CCTV all over the place. Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse. My car was stolen from outside the house. The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford. Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it? No. Let the insurance company sort it out. The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection. I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection. And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malagaram Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, ilkleyram said: Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything. It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago. The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state. And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate. Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago. CCTV all over the place. Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse. My car was stolen from outside the house. The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford. Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it? No. Let the insurance company sort it out. The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection. I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection. And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted March 31, 2021 Author Share Posted March 31, 2021 1 hour ago, Malagaram said: Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. Except they didn't. No arrest , fine or identification. The tactic was to persuade people to follow the rules with a bit of scaring. It worked, same as at Calke with the two girls. A drone at Nottingham last 2 days might have worked wonders, although drunken students looking for a fight probably would welcome the excuse to have a go at the authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 You lot all wait until they rollout full scale facial recognititon - they'll be able to see where you were and when without even needing to track your phone. Big Brother is watching you - or at least he will be in the very near future..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 2 hours ago, FindernRam said: Except they didn't. No arrest , fine or identification. The tactic was to persuade people to follow the rules with a bit of scaring. It worked, same as at Calke with the two girls. A drone at Nottingham last 2 days might have worked wonders, although drunken students looking for a fight probably would welcome the excuse to have a go at the authorities. Except it clearly did not work if people were still going to Calke Abbey in the second lockdown ( and the police's own twitter reported hundreds levied in fines) and now gathering in Nottingham. And what we’re left with is that a police strategy of using modern technology deliberately to 'scare' otherwise perfectly law abiding people is an acceptable way of policing. Seems to me to be a very odd way of 'policing in my name' but then each to their own. What will stop people from gathering is the temperature dropping by 10 degrees and the sun going in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.