|
Hehe - you always manage to make it sound so sinister. One of the Heathrow parking places uses it, as you approach. By the time you reach the booth they already have your booking on screen etc. It's not all bad...
|
|
It is installed at a Sainsburys car park to monitor arrival and departure times, I dont know if it is used to issue penalty notices. Also at Crawly rubbish tip (sorry recycling centre).
|
|
Another bit of info I unearthed is that passing through an ANPR point operated by the police doesn't just get wiped out if it doesn't go ' ping ". The place time and date of your activation is held on computers at the the Polices Hendon base for 5 years.
|
..doesn't just get wiped out if it doesn't go ' ping "...
Criminals may have legal cars.
I know of a case in which the police used ANPR to track a burglar.
His car was straight - he wasn't.
Edited by ifithelps on 17/02/2009 at 20:39
|
'Criminals may have legal cars. "
Indeed... and a really good criminal will know the ins and outs of the ANPR system and not be driving around in a vehicle they can be connected with.
|
'Criminals may have legal cars. " Indeed... and a really good criminal will know the ins and outs of the ANPR system and not be driving around in a vehicle they can be connected with.
I think most people realise that ANPR can be put to many uses. Government wise, only those bound by the official secrets act and have a need to know will know the full extent of its use, and then only in their own field of work.
Edited by Old Navy on 17/02/2009 at 20:52
|
|
At Stansted Mid-Term car park you arrive at the barrier, push button for a ticket and it arrives 2 seconds later with your car reg printed on it!
|
... and a really good criminal...
...won't get caught.
I only tend to come across the rubbish ones that do get nicked.
They all have one thing in common - they're all losers.
|
|
|
|
Hehe - you always manage to make it sound so sinister.
And the fact that innocent peoples private lives being kept on computer for 5 years ISNT sinister?
the fact is we can, and are tracked by our mobile phones is bad enough -I dont see that its anyones business but my own where I (legally) choose to go. to have my travelling habits kept on file, I think is an invasion of my privacy.
how long before we find ANPR records used in a divorce case?
|
There's a joke there somewhere, surely?
On a serious note, divorce is a civil matter and I'm not yet aware of the precedent that allows the revelation of ANPR data for civil matters. Are you? I'd be pleased to learn.
|
The police are allowed the to use their discression to allow the person to take out Insurance at the road side eg ring a direct company if say they have vunerable adults or young children with them. (They would could still receive a FPN for the no insurance).
I think a lot of the people that have complaints about having their vehicle impounded when they had insurance and had to walk off busy motorways etc would not be as unhappy if this course was taken as they would not have the cost / inconvenience of getting their vehicle impounded, the danger of walking off a busy road and getting home and they could prove they had valid insurance for the time they were actually driving at a later date.
Why is this not implemented more often instead of just impounding the car?
|
Wasn't there a previous thread whic discussed this "dumped at the side of the road" and found the stories didn't tell the whole truth and that the Police had actually offered onward transport?
Just what is the scale of the problem, does anyone actually know?? Are the ones that make it to the papers the tip of the iceberg or just someone who wants to have a moan?
Surely before we knock the system we should actually ascertain if there is an issue or if its just the odd one which has been blown up out of all recognition because it was a slow news day??
So those of you who are knocking it... your stats proving that there is an issue are?
Edited by b308 on 18/02/2009 at 10:53
|
It has actually made it to the Houses of Parliament with an MP ( name of Jones ) being quoted on in Hansards , with him having raised the subject of wrongful confiscation on more than one
occasion.
tinyurl.com/b56jcn
|
|
MrX I'm not denying that there are people who have problems, I'm asking you for details of how big the problem is... that link actually indicates that the number of incorrect seizures is very small, especially compared with the number of enquiries made on ANPR and the number of cars seized... if anything it backs the view that it is better to inconvenience the few to the benefit of the majority.
|
|
I could provide numerous links but I' am not going to fill this thread with them. Any one can google and it will bring up plenty of examples of wrongful seizure.
|
You were the one that refered us to that quote!
I would refer you to this, from the MP raising the issue:
"The database is an essential component in the drive to rid our roads of uninsured drivers"
Even the MP agrees that it is required, the only issue they have is the small inaccuracy and what happens when someone has insurance but it doesn't show... I have said that I agree that needs sorting... but you seem to be saying that the whole database is not used until we have 100% accuracy... even the MP raising the question never suggested that!
Its also worth remembering that ANPR doesn't only cover just insurance, and has lead to many arrests unconected with MID...
So, if I understand you correctly, MrX, due to a very small number of errors you are saying that the technology should not be used and therefore allowing people carte blanche to get away with driving without insurance, tax, mot or when banned... all of which the use of ANPR allows the police to prevent.
If I'm wrong in that summary, please tell me what I've got wrong, and how you propose they (the Police) ensure that they are still able to catch these people, as I'm damned sure the old system isn't capable of doing so...
|
If I'm wrong in that summary please tell me what I've got wrong and how you propose they (the Police) ensure that they are still able to catch these people as I'm damned sure the old system isn't capable of doing so...
Regarding insurance, if the vehicle is not on the d/b:
If the pullee admits no insurance, impound his car.
If he doesn't admit it:
- if he can't be identified/traced with a reasonable certainty, impound his car.
- if he can be identified/traced with a reasonable certainty, produce/check documents later.
Is that difficult?
|
|
Sorry, FT, I'm not sure where you are coming from... ANPR helps to identify possible lack of insurance amongst other things... what I was asking is what system will MrX use to obtain the same, or more "hits" as ANPR, to ensure that we catch as many as possible if he bans use of ANPR because of the 5% inaccuracy of MID...
|
|
I will be happy for them to carry using ANPR but for the bodies involved to accept the paper ins certs or other evidence when some one claims to be insured but not on the data base. If, as some seem to suggest, only a tiny minority show up on the system as uninsured when they are in fact insured, what's the problem with letting that 5% go on their way with HORT 1's after gaining proof of address ?
|
Because it becomes 10, 20,30,40,50%
Edited by Fullchat on 18/02/2009 at 18:14
|
Why, when there're only a few (the figure 5% has been mentioned) that aren't in the D/B?
How *can* it increase to 50% (or even 10%)?
|
Because you cannot quantify which 5 % are the ones which are insured but show up as not. As they get wise to what excuses to come up with then more should be allowed to go. That's my theory anyway.
|
I can't see that, unless the same uninsured and lying person is stopped very many times - then the average would go up.
However, if you're pretty sure that someone is who they say they are, you can postpone verification. If they turn out not to be insured, they can be "done". If they do turn out to be insured, the whole problem is then avoided - isn't it?
|
|
It is and I for one can't see why that is not in place until 100% accuracy is achieved. If 100% is not possible, then postponed verification must be the first tool, not confiscation.
|
|
On a serious note divorce is a civil matter and I'm not yet aware of the precedent that allows the revelation of ANPR data for civil matters. Are you? I'd be pleased to learn.
Correct, divorce IS a civil matter, the point Im trying to make is, ANPR data can be, and is used to track people (many innocent) going about the country, maybe Europe, and this data will be kept for 5 years.....
... so... how long before HMG decides, like they have with other items of data collected about us, that there is money to be made selling this information off?
hence, the following could soon be happening... ''Mr John Smith, was recorded as being in Church Street Reading on these dates, close to the home of the correspondent, Ms Sharon Slapper, when he had told his soon to be ex-wife, he was in meetings in Theale'' could be used against him in a divorce case!
I for one can see it coming.........
|
Take the scenario- the police don't like you - you don't like them
Mrs Slapper is found murdered. Your number plate is found to have been in the area at the time of the deadly deed. You admit to being the registered keeper and having been at the wheel that day.......... the rest is not beyond the realms of possibility.
|
Ha ha so now ANPR is going to accuse people of murder?
What do you mean by the rest is not beyond the realms of possibility?
What rest?
|
|
|
Take the scenario- the police don't like you - you don't like them Mrs Slapper is found murdered
Same as if a human witness had seen you in the vicinity. Unless there's other evidence eg forensics, DNA domestic CCTV etc however much the police dislike you it's very unlikley you'd get beyond being arrested and questioned under caution.
Unless of course you're a gun obsessed loner with an established pre-disposition to stalk women..........
|
|
Or guilty. Just because they don't like you, doesn't mean they're always wrong....
|
|
Look at it another way. Would you ring the police every morning and tell them which streets you will be going down during the day and the night. Would you tell them the times and the places were you could be seen ?. No, I doubt any of us would want to, but do those very things in a motor car and you are considered as fair game via the use of ANPR
|
You are losing me here. Fair game for what exactly? No different to CCTV. Ms Slapper get murdered, CCTV gets checked. Boyfriends car seen in vicinity, ANPR 'Ping' some distance away en route home. All part of evidence gathering. Boyfriend gets invited in for a 'chat'.
Boyfriend (married) denies being there. Evidence suggest otherwise. Possible suspect???
|
|
I am saying that the motorist is considered fair game for 24/7 surveillance because their vehicle is easily tracked via ANPR with their details quickly to hand. Now when you walk the streets, CCTV might very well be watching your route but it DOESN'T know who you are , where you live.
|
when you walk the streets CCTV might very well be watching your route but it DOESN'T knowwho you are where you live.
Exactly Mr X.... some may not see the problem, and most of the time there isnt one, but... there are times one doesnt want to be tracked, and not for illegal reasons.
1984 is finally here I feel (George Orwells version)
|
|
We were sold the idea of ANPR as a stand alone tool for detecting drivers with no insurance, car tax, mot, licence. How ever, it is becoming clear that it is much more than that. Why keep details of every car that passes it's sensors for 5 years ? To help solve crimes I hear some of you mutter. So the next step must be the collection of DNA off all of us to assist this tool.
|
So the next step must be the collection of DNA off all of us to assist this tool.
Keep it motoring.
|
Now when you walk the streets CCTV might very well be watching your route but it >> DOESN'T know who you are where you live.
Not yet, but facial recognition software has been under development for years and it's only a matter of time. Once you are a suspect you can be traced anyway - witness the 7/7 bombers tracked from Luton station to their ultimate destinations.
|
So what are peoples thoughts on this happening in the future
The year is 2054 and Washington DC is a benign and peaceful state where murder has become obsolete. This is thanks to the successful deployment of the Department of Pre-Crime, a unit so sophisticated that it can detect murders before they actually happen and arrest the would-be perpetrators. At the head of operations is Detective John Anderton (Cruise) who uses information acquired from three 'precognates' (floating bodies with the foresight to predict the crimes) to carry out his duties.
This is from Minority Report, people are arrested before they commit the crime! Who would have thought ten years ago we would have had cameras that could read our number plates, be linked to computers to check them against databases etc. Like the other poster said it won't be long before there is facial recognition cameras and you can guess which country will have them first.
|
|
I have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong. Yet, by midnight tonight, most of my days driving will be sitting on a server in Hendon and will do so for 5 years.
|
And that would be a good place to finish this thread.
|
|
Why would we want to finish it?
|
Cos its going round in circles. Conspiracy Theorists v Practical Applicationists.
Edited by Fullchat on 18/02/2009 at 21:58
|
|
FC, I wonder whether you could tear yourself away from these discussions (which are, perhaps, on the esoteric periphery of reality) and chat about my post of 18 Feb 09 18:28?
|
Im no mathematician and the figures were 'tongue in cheek' However if it accepted that 5% of the MID database is not current, then which vehicles of all the ones that fall into that category are or are not actually insured at that point in time?
Dependent on the time of day/ day of the week then there are limitations to how many checks can be conducted.
If you consider the number of reasons/excuses given by anyone flagged up for no insurance then some are telling the truth and some are not. Some might even admit it straight away.
So based on that ,if the checks were inconclusive and anyone telling you that the dog had eaten theirs were to be allowed to drive away. It would not be long before the certain individuals would also be telling you the dog had eaten theirs. A precedent is then set. (I use that as purely an example).
|
|
The dog may well have eaten their paper copy but as Police don't accept a paper cert any longer, even when you fish it out of your glove box, then your argument holds no water.
|
Mr. X, the paper certificate business is irrelevant to to inaccuracies in the insurance database. If the person is insured, the D/B can be corrected by the insurer, and the check done again later against the db.
Quite frankly *I* wouldn't accept a paper copy of an insurance certificate - on its own - as proof that there's insurance. It *might* give me pause for thought - and, it must be said, that the offering of a forged document ought to lead to further consequences, as it's really quite serious - attempting to pervert the course of justice.
It's very easy to produce forged documents nowadays. Something else is needed - however, if that something is to be relied on, it should be reliable!
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 19/02/2009 at 17:47
|
Dependent on the time of day/ day of the week then there are limitations to how many checks can be conducted.
OK... more below.
If you consider the number of reasons/excuses given by anyone flagged up for no insurance then some are telling the truth and some are not.
Yes. I'm quite sure that some would lie. If they knowingly do so, IMO they should be subject to further penalty.
Some might even admit it straight away.
Therefore have their car impounded, no probs.
So based on that if the checks were inconclusive and anyone telling you that the dog had eaten theirs were to be allowed to drive away. It would not be long before the certain individuals would also be telling you the dog had eaten theirs.
Yes, but the issues is that they can in fact be insured, but the database does not (yet?) show it. It doesn't matter whether the dog ate their certificate, or whether you've no time to check, or even that for some reason the whole database is unavailable, orwhatever.
If you're pretty sure that someone is who they say they are, you can postpone verification. This would allow the person to get their ins. co. to update the database, for instance. If they do turn out to be uninsured, they can be found and "done". If they do turn out to be insured, the whole problem is then avoided - isn't it?
The above paragraph is really the essence of my objection to auto-impounding (pun intended).
|
|
Your perfectly correct FT but we have yet to be told why the police object to doing what you suggest. Once they have established your ID and place of abode, is it really to difficult to follow up if later they discover you had no insurance following further enquiries ?
|
|
Mr. X, *that is why I am asking a policeman*.
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 19/02/2009 at 17:51
|
But all cars are not 'auto-impounded' as a matter of course. Some tales of woe would suggest that they are but decisions are not made on the MID alone. We know that the MID is not a 100 reliable. Nor is the ANPR database.
If you are convinced that the driver could be telling the truth and everything else checks out then yes why not give the benefit of the doubt and give a 7 day producer and follow up. If other avenues are not checking out or if there are conflict in a story then it may be that the car is seized.
I cannot account for how individuals operate only how I have operated. Taking someones car is not a decision made lightly.
Haven't we done this subject to death before?
Edited by Fullchat on 19/02/2009 at 18:22
|
May be but wasn't the most recent case of wrongful confiscation only around two months ago ?
The whole process has been operating long enough for ACPO to have hammered out some sort of national policy rather than leaving the ground troops to wing it ?
Not one of the wrongful ANPR confiscation cases I have read up on have ever provided any evidence of illegal activity or law breaking on behalf of the wronged party.
|
Not one of the wrongful ANPR confiscation cases I have read up on have ever provided any evidence of illegal activity or law breaking on behalf of the wronged party.
Surely if they had turned up illegal activity it wouldn't be a wrongful confiscation.
This forum gets more like the Daily M**l every day.
Edited by commerdriver on 19/02/2009 at 18:31
|
The suggestion from our PC friends is that there never really has been a wrongful confiscation and that something else has shown up in the end to justify the confiscation in the first place.
I believe that to be wrong.
|
don't think anyone has suggested that a mistake has never been made, just that the proportion of mistakes is tiny and that some of the claims of people being stranded at the side of motorways etc were just a touch exaggerated.
It's not a perfect system, we don't live in a perfect world but it's a valuable tool in catching the lowlife on the roads and elsewhere and I for one want to see its continued use.
Similarly as long as the historic records of vehicle movement are used for reactive policing rather than big brother activities I can't see a big problem.
|
|
On the basis that you think you read up on an issue, but you haven't any means of verifying the truth or the frequency of such events, sceptics are called names?
|
who was that addressed to nortones?
|
|
Cassandra. Oops:) Mr X, of course. It got bumped.
Edited by nortones2 on 19/02/2009 at 18:58
|
|
When driving I have a registration plate which matches the make and model of my car and can provide my name and address, I carry photo ID (bus pass and photocopy of my driving licence, matches name and address), I have debit and credit cards in my name and I have photocopies of my MOT and certificate of insurance. Even if my car fell off the MID If that lot is not enough to satisfy the police we might just as well all drive to the nearest police station and surrender our cars. I also belive that the police are being unfairly bashed and should be credited with just a little common sense.
|
Seen on the Henley Road, coming out of Caversham Reading tonight.....
One ANPR van,
Three police motorcycles with seated riders engines running,
Eight police officers (in addition to the above....)
would have been a good time to do a bank job in Whitley........
|
Visible policing. Much sought after. Anyone complaining? (Silly question, I know they will)
Slightly OT, a few years back I went out on shift twice with a traffic officer from Taplow, both Friday nights. That was before traffic had quite such a range of duties. but we covered a huge patch. One time we got an "officer down" call but we were at the wrong end of the patch. it emerged that there was only 1 other traffic car out that night. (Obviously there were locals too).
|
Visible policing. Much sought after. Anyone complaining? (Silly question I know they will)
Visible police IS what we want... visible waste of police resources is another matter...
those 8 officers were standing around chatting when I went past, OK they may have pulled a few cars at once but...... come on.. that is OTT when there isnt enough coppers to come when you find you house broken in, or whatever!
|
Assumption time again?... ok so there were several around, but I doubt that the low lives all drive past a suitable intervals for just one or two coppers to deal with... you may get none for an hour and then a rush!
And I'd have thought that if there was a sudden rush of break ins locally they could have detached a few to go chasing...
Yet another case of damned if they do and damned if they don't...
|
Are you familiar with that new fangled device that is popular with scallywags and bounders ?
It's called the mobile phone. When an ANPR trap is set up, these types have been known to quickly send out texts and ring each other to pass on a warning as to what is occurring.
|
When an ANPR trap is set up these types have been known to quickly send out texts and ring each other to pass on a warning as to what is occurring.
So are you saying that the Police should not bother because of the above... just think how many other scenarios that are part of policing that could apply to... football thugs... they could take another route and duff up some other unsuspecting passer-by... burglars could phone each other if they saw the police... drug dealers move to another place after 'phone warnings...
Would you rather the Police did nothing, MrX?... Sorry, I didn't need to ask that question we already know the answer is Yes!
|
No in answer to your question.
It was the suggestion that nothing might happen for an hour and then a rush which made me chuckle. An hour is plenty long enough for the jungle drums to have been beaten and I very much doubt following that hour, a rush will take place.
|
Might come as a surprise this; all villains and law breakers are not united by a common bond and have each others mobile phone numbers in their 'friends and favourites' directory.
The only things that are common are their lifestyle and a unique number issued by a government agency. (And I don't mean the Benefits Agency )
Edited by Fullchat on 20/02/2009 at 17:57
|
Might come as a surprise this; all villains and law breakers are not united by a common bond ...........
and there was me thinking ANPR was about catching uninsured or untaxed vehicles, not stopping all villains!
sounds like all villains need to do, is make sure their cars are fully legal to get past the police.
Hmmm just had a thought... if i park an uninsured car in my drive, leave the keys on the hallway table, put an empty widescreen TV box on display, i could single handedly assist the police in catching the local housebreakers!
Crim see's I have a new tv... enters house... sees keys, loads tv and other stuff in my (uninsured) car... drives off... gets stopped for no insurance!!!
|
|
Re visible policing, if you watch some of the police programmes there seem to be quite a few coppers but very few of them in uniform - except traffic and the ones sorting out the late night drunks in the town centres. I have been quite surprised by the number of plain clothes police, especially in London, maybe they are more prevalent than we realise.
|
We know that the MID is not a 100 reliable. Nor is the ANPR database. If you are convinced that the driver could be telling the truth and everything else checks out then yes why not give the benefit of the doubt and give a 7 day producer and follow up.
If this really is done, then great!
If other avenues are not checking out or if there are conflict in a story then it may be that the car is seized.
Quite.
I cannot account for how individuals operate only how I have operated.
Point taken. Perhaps a "code of practice"? Argh, more paperwork....
Haven't we done this subject to death before?
It has been mentioned a few times - however, unless I've missed something, yours is the first and only post that entertains the possibilities stated above.
Thanks.
|
Big mass pull just now outside the tube station a couple of hundred yards down the road in a neighbourhood whose once-tasty reputation is hardly deserved these days. Not just the usual couple of community plod but about ten others, real ones, with a van parked in the minicab rank.
They were pulling civilians of course, not motorists. They were rifling through some young guy's pockets as I passed, and had a metal detector arch set up there on the pavement.
|
I expect they are on the lookout for a gent of distinguished years who having been reported missing prior to Christmas has been seen affecting a Crocodile Dundee style of apparel and now allegedly carries and brandishes a large bowie knife........
Rumoured to be frightening passers by with mutterings of "M'names Luddy, G'day, that's not a knife...... er Cobber".....
|
|
MrX - Having read countless contributions from you, I wonder if you have an opinion about exactly what the Police should be doing, and how? Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your informed opinion, detailing Policing priorities, how you arrive at them and how they should be achieved. Perhaps I could assist you by suggesting that crime and the motor car are inextricably linked (criminals travel by car, even very short distances since they are intrinsically lazy) Would you also share your vast knowledge of ANPR with us and explain it's primary workings and function i.e. those achieved before simply highlighting uninsured/taxed vehicles (I know such use has not been fully explained here and I'd love to know it's real use). Once you've detailed the answers perhaps the rest of us could discuss your suggestions with you? To reiterate and make myself clear: I suggest the link to motoring is established by the continued discussion on this motoring forum about Policing and the link between the criminal and the car.
|
and explain it's primary workings and function i.e. those achieved before simply highlighting uninsured/taxed vehicles (I know such use has not been fully explained here and I'd love to know it's real use).
Woodster, you will not get that information here, see my post above (Tue 17 Feb 20:49). Its full use and capabilities will not be revealed here and I very much doubt if a traffic policeman will know the full extent of its use anyway.
|
Perhaps I could assist you by suggesting that crime and the motor car are inextricably linked (criminals travel by car even very short distances since they are intrinsically lazy)
so before the motorcar, we didnt have crime?
to stop crime, ban all cars?
(shakes head and wanders off..........)
Edited by rtj70 on 20/02/2009 at 21:51
|
|
So Lud, this is not ANPR then is it. No further discussion on this. A police operation yes but not a motoring one. Thanks.
|
Swiss Tony - D'oh! perhaps the criminal adapted to the car? Of course we had crime before cars, but it does not follow that criminals have denounced the car.
Old navy. I am more than familiar with the full capability of ANPR thanks. I suspect MrX is not. That was my point.
Edited by rtj70 on 20/02/2009 at 21:51
|
|
Discuss ANPR not each others' thoughts etc
Edited by rtj70 on 20/02/2009 at 23:27
|
|
Discuss ANPR not each others' thoughts etc
Edited by rtj70 on 20/02/2009 at 23:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
