New speed cameras?

BigAl94

Quote from local PSNI Commander in County Down Spectator today "The information will be used primarily to identify vehicles being driven without Road Tax or MOT but more importantly those without insurance. Offenders will receive fixed penalties through the post or indeed visits from the Police. The added bonus of the information is that in the event of any burglaries or other crimes in the area the movements of the suspect's vehicle can be confirmed"

Bigbrotheriswatching

BigAl94 wrote: »

Quote from local PSNI Commander in County Down Spectator today "The information will be used primarily to identify vehicles being driven without Road Tax or MOT but more importantly those without insurance. Offenders will receive fixed penalties through the post or indeed visits from the Police. The added bonus of the information is that in the event of any burglaries or other crimes in the area the movements of the suspect's vehicle can be confirmed"

Yes and that sounds great. We all want people on the roads to be taxed and insured like us.

Its interesting that when Mr Chambers asked him the question he failed to inform him that they are taking and storing the movements of ALL motorists and not just the uninsured ones completely without consultation legislation or regulation.

Indeed it has left Mr Chambers himself in the illusion that these are in no way intruding law abiding motorists as he is "Hopeful that they will be viewed as another tool for the police to employ against those breaking the law rather than an intrusion aimed at law abiding motorists"

steveymp

BigAl94 wrote: »

Quote from local PSNI Commander in County Down Spectator today "The information will be used primarily to identify vehicles being driven without Road Tax or MOT but more importantly those without insurance. Offenders will receive fixed penalties through the post or indeed visits from the Police. The added bonus of the information is that in the event of any burglaries or other crimes in the area the movements of the suspect's vehicle can be confirmed"

That is what we all thought and hoped the cameras would be used for :T

Bigbrotheriswatching

steveymp wrote: »

That is what we all thought and hoped the cameras would be used for :T

I dont think anyone was ever contesting what the cameras were capable of or what they would be used for.

As i have said now many times, we all want safe roads where everyone pays their tax and insurance just like you and me. Lets make that clear.


The problem is the by-product of its usage.

I have previously posted recommendations made by an inquiry in Australia into the effects of anpr. This was rejected by a member of this forum as they felt Australian anpr apparently had nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

Perhaps these recommendations of this Thesis by Alina Haines for Huddersfield University in 2009 will be better approved.


This Thesis has been quoted by numerous police officers and government ministers in the Uk.

---

It appears that the public will feel more confident in the police use of ANPR surveillance if the legislation with regards to ANPR were in line with latest developments and use. It would be beneficial if the government placed ANPR on a proper statutory basis, with clear regulations and an appropriate system of complaint aiming to protect both the public (from any infringement to their civil liberties) and the police or other crime prevention agencies using ANPR technology (from malpractice which could undermine investigations and convictions).

The ANPR regulations should be publicised in official government documents available to the public, making clear reference to purposes for ANPR use by the police and how citizens’ privacy and civil rights are protected. Safeguards and restrictions on ANPR data handling need to be carefully monitored. It is believed that the development of a clear ANPR Code of Practice would help ANPR users to understand their legal obligations and reassure the public about the safeguards in place. The ANPR Code of Practice would cover current practice, but also anticipate any arising issues due to the extension and development of ANPR systems in the UK. The Code would be subject to regular review (e.g. every 2 years) to include consultation with relevant parties (including the public) and new ANPR developments. It would be made public and clearly state its nature and objectives and the legislation that it complies with, while making clear reference to the extent of oversight of ANPR use in the UK (e.g. the Information Commissioner’s Office).

The ANPR Code would address issues around the operation of ANPR systems in the UK and responsibilities of all users and specifications and issues regarding ANPR technology. It would make clear reference to data recording, retention and disclosure and strict Data Protection regulations. Most importantly, the ANPR Code of Practice would clearly specify how to deal with breaches of the Code, how data subjects can access information or make complaints and the means by which the public could be made aware of the Code.


Are these reasonable or would you still like to stick with no regulation at all?

Macdexter

absoluteutopia wrote: »

As an innocent, it doesn't bother me.

it also do not bother me too.

Bigbrotheriswatching

Davis alleges criminal misuse of CCTV cameras by government and police



David Davis has alleged that the Home Office and Metropolitan Police may have broken the law while using security camera images. The claim was made during Home Office questions in the House of Commons.


He described an event around 12 months ago when he was tipped off that the Whitehall department along with the Met had misused CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras in an illegal manner.


The Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden said:
“A year ago I was approached by a whistleblower with an allegation there had been criminal misuse of CCTV and ANPR information by the Home Office and a part of the Metropolitan Police.”
"I established that the individual knew the insides of the organisations concerned an ongoing operation, that he had no obvious reason for malice or deceit, and I sent the information to the Home Secretary."

However, Mr. Davis claimed he never received a response when he delivered the allegations to Home Secretary Theresa May. Mrs. May assured him that she would investigate the allegations thoroughly, she said:
“I will go back and ensure this matter is brought to my attention.”


We await the results of this investigation with interest, as the allegations, if part of a wider pattern of misuse, could create a scandal on a massive scale.

D.A.

Can't we all just agree to disagree on this one? :-)

I would expect nothing better from the good citizens of MSE. ;-)