New speed cameras?

Bigbrotheriswatching

x12yhp wrote: »

There is actually a very noteworthy difference between these situations. One is 'in public', the other is 'private'. These are not my own definitions but they are legal definitions.

No one is asking to install cameras in a private area, we are talking about public areas. If the government is willing to give me a nice house for free, I am quite happy if they put up a camera or two to make sure that there is nothing bizarre going on!

In any case this is now being argued off as a triviality yet someone earlier was more than happy to have our free society consisting of many hundreds of murderers (in just NI alone). That is not at all trivial. And I bet those who are so keen on their freedom to 'hide nothing' would be a little bit less mouthy if your husband or wife was killed by a car bomb or raped by a known sex offender. And I know that there is no dead cert that it might be prevented but this is a game of statistics and trends. Being able to track bad people WILL make it easier to stop them and to catch them.

This is NI and you are either very naive to think that a secretive life is not suspicious or you are very forgetful of what has gone on in the recent past.

ps. I should point out that I very rarely agree with NAR. So you have two people with very differing views who are totally disagreeing with you. It will not just be 1 in a thousand who considers you suspicious...

Can i just ask you what statistics you have seen to back up your argument that anpr is the holy grail of policing? Have you seen any at all?

BigAl94

Nobody said it's the holy grail, it's a use of modern technology in a way that will benefit society. Are you a dissident republican by any chance?

Bigbrotheriswatching

BigAl94 wrote: »

Nobody said it's the holy grail, it's a use of modern technology in a way that will benefit society. Are you a dissident republican by any chance?

You comment is so pathetic it barley worth a reply to be honest.

If you knew the where the political support for my campaign was coming from you would realise just how stupid your comment is.

There is NO green and orange in my campaign!

x12yhp

EdgEy wrote: »

"suspicious" "A secretive life" "track bad people"

As you continue to completely ignore my point that these cameras track EVERYONE and instead choose to focus on a tiny minority of criminals, I'll refrain from posting more.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Even in a public place, an innocent man has the right to not be followed, not have the presumption of guilt on his back at all times.

No one has been so stupid as to suggest that they do not track everyone. What we are saying is that WE DO NOT CARE! If my car flagging up an ANPR camera when I go out to the shops is the price I have to pay to aid in the capture of a dangerous criminal - then I am happy with that.

It is a very anti-society view that YOU are the most important person. In theory, you are saying that you would rather let someone die than be spotted by a camera, on your way to the shops. You are entitled to your own views but I think you are really really selfish. More over, I do not understand why all you people with these views can be so against society but are never ever willing to move elsewhere in the world where your way might be considered normal. Never willing to go that bit extra unless it actually involves trying to change the larger part of society.

Bigbrotheriswatching wrote: »

Can i just ask you what statistics you have seen to back up your argument that anpr is the holy grail of policing? Have you seen any at all?

I said it was statistical, not that there are actual statistics to back it up. Even asking this indicates you do not understand the concept. For starters, how can I produce statistics for something that has only just started?

I made a general point so respond, generally. Do you believe that knowing the whereabouts of criminals is more or less likely to make it possible to police them? The statistical part comes in because it won't be easy to necessarily say that ANPR directly resulted in a certain policing success (like several have seemed to demand). That is not how it works. The concept is that it will make it possible to make a link in a case. Maybe spot something that leads to an important break through. Individually, these things might mean little. But add them together and you have a statistical trend.

x12yhp

Bigbrotheriswatching wrote: »

There is NO green and white in my campaign!

I would say it is all black and white... unfortunately shades of grey also tend to exist.

Derivative

x12yhp wrote: »

It is a very anti-society view that YOU are the most important person. In theory, you are saying that you would rather let someone die than be spotted by a camera, on your way to the shops.

I hate to play this strawman game...
Cameras in your house.
Otherwise, you are saying you would rather let people craft bombs in their home.
Do you see how silly that reasoning is?

Most people would agree they are against surveillance to some degree. The issue lies in how much of your personal privacy and liberty you are willing to sacrifice for justice to occur. It's not black and white - and you simply set the bar lower than me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You do not care that your movements can be tracked by car, I can accept that. What I cannot accept is the premise that those who do not share your view are somehow "suspicious", what I can only construe as an attempt to demonize my views, to cast me off as a criminal when that cannot be further from the truth (well, okay, I might have a few MP3's, and probably done 22mph in a 20 at some point). I simply believe in the right of the individual to go about their everyday business without undue interference.

x12yhp

You don't accept it but a bunch of people have confirmed it on this thread....

Having a camera in your house... i could see you objecting. It would be embrassing... I could accept that argument. But I don't see the problem with a camera which is out on the street doing nothing more than logging your car... the only reasons I can think of are that you have something to hide or you just like to whinge....

Derivative

x12yhp wrote: »

You don't accept it but a bunch of people have confirmed it on this thread....

I wouldn't say it's 50/50, but there are other posters that have expressed the same sentiment. To be honest the forum is hardly representative on either side, I wouldn't pick numbers if there were "more of me", or whatever.

Having a camera in your house... i could see you objecting. It would be embrassing... I could accept that argument. But I don't see the problem with a camera which is out on the street doing nothing more than logging your car... the only reasons I can think of are that you have something to hide or you just like to whinge....

The problem is not with the single camera, in fact I believe ANPR cameras are mostly currently used for stuff like road tax, London's congestion zone, etc.

Given enough of these cameras you can build up a map of where a person (okay, a car. which actually provides a problem in criminal investigations...) has travelled.

I don't think that is information the police service should be able to collect about me without my consent. It is rather similar to if a police officer followed me around every day in an unmarked car.

I hope you can see how it's similar. CCTV cameras outside pubs and shops both actively prevent crime and help to nab suspects. Yes, my face might appear on one every now and again, but there's a vast leap from that to building up a profile of my entire day. And the use of ANPR in criminal investigations is much less, as if you really have something to hide, you'll just get a fake plate or take it off entirely.

Bigbrotheriswatching

x12yhp wrote: »

No one has been so stupid as to suggest that they do not track everyone. What we are saying is that WE DO NOT CARE! If my car flagging up an ANPR camera when I go out to the shops is the price I have to pay to aid in the capture of a dangerous criminal - then I am happy with that.

It is a very anti-society view that YOU are the most important person. In theory, you are saying that you would rather let someone die than be spotted by a camera, on your way to the shops. You are entitled to your own views but I think you are really really selfish. More over, I do not understand why all you people with these views can be so against society but are never ever willing to move elsewhere in the world where your way might be considered normal. Never willing to go that bit extra unless it actually involves trying to change the larger part of society.





I said it was statistical, not that there are actual statistics to back it up. Even asking this indicates you do not understand the concept. For starters, how can I produce statistics for something that has only just started?

I made a general point so respond, generally. Do you believe that knowing the whereabouts of criminals is more or less likely to make it possible to police them? The statistical part comes in because it won't be easy to necessarily say that ANPR directly resulted in a certain policing success (like several have seemed to demand). That is not how it works. The concept is that it will make it possible to make a link in a case. Maybe spot something that leads to an important break through. Individually, these things might mean little. But add them together and you have a statistical trend.

You are basing your entire argument on assumptions that these cameras are catching criminals of all sorts. Leads are being flagged up and criminals chased like never before.

Anpr hasnt just started, Anpr has been in the mainland for several years. There is in fact over 8 Billion individual journeys stored on the UK database so surely there must be statistics?

It may be of interest to you that in a recent tribunal regarding disclosure of anpr camera locations in Devon (full report on the website), the police were ordered to disclose them all within 35 days. One of the factors that lead to this decision was that they could not provide any information at all as to whether these cameras actually even work. They had no statistics and not one shred of evidence.

D.A.

x12yhp wrote: »

the only reasons I can think of are that you have something to hide or you just like to whinge....

Or that he gives a stuff about civil liberties, which have been enshrined in UK law for centuries (and European law as well), but which can now seemingly be ignored at will.