Crime - Automatic Vehicle Tracking

C_steam · 29-06-2005, 03:00 PM

Different issue Matt. That argument has nothing to do with the existence of the technology - it has everything to do with how that technology is being put to use.

In short, people perceive speed camera's as a revenue generator, a stance with which I agree. But people also feel that if they were only used in accident blackspots, dangerous places (i.e outside schools) and to control speed through road works, they are a good thing - they no doubt help to control speed in those places where there is a good reason for the speed to be controlled.

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

In short, people perceive speed camera's as a revenue generator, a stance with which I agree. But people also feel that if they were only used in accident blackspots, dangerous places (i.e outside schools) and to control speed through road works, they are a good thing

That's how they got them through in the first place. Put forward what seems to be a sensible idea, promise that they won't be abused, then once through, abuse them to hell and back.

Some of these projects take on lives of their own in the end. Different people, with different agendas warp the original idea out of all context and we end up with disaster.

I fundementaly object to any measure that is to obtrusive on the ordianary law abiding citizen. The congestion scheme went well over the line for me and adding to it is just insult to injury.

C_steam · 29-06-2005, 03:15 PM

I oppose congestion charging purely from the point of view that I've already paid for the roads once, thank you. The technology used to enforce or manage such a scheme is irrelevent.

So, if we are agreed to scrap congestion charges and only allow speed camera's in locations where they have an honest purpose - would you still oppose the natural extension of the data gathered by such to be used to catch car thieves et al as suggested by David?

Also,

Quote:

Put forward what seems to be a sensible idea, promise that they won't be abused, then once through, abuse them to hell and back

how do you stop such? - what is your control measure? Possibly the only way would be to stop the use of technology at all in the first place, which is clearly a non starter.

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

would you still oppose the natural extension of the data gathered by such to be used to catch car thieves et al as suggested by David?

Quote:

how do you stop such? - what is your control measure? Possibly the only way would be to stop the use of technology at all in the first place, which is clearly a non starter.

As long as the system requires the full time tracking of everyone, then I personally am against it.

I would actually scrap speed cameras altogether and go back to the police using their common sense and judgement. I don't believe they have provided any real value, but have done a lot of damage.

As I said before, they can use techonology to their hearts content if it is focused. Subject us all to it, then I don't want it .

John Carter · 29-06-2005, 03:29 PM

Of course, the way to stop cars from being nicked is a change in the justice system...

1) Keep the current system (guilty "beyond reasonable doubt").
2) Add another layer onto it - guilty "beyond all doubt" - for those caught red-handed.
3) Minimum 40 years in solitary for anyone caught nicking a car without good reason (i.e. we'd let people off with just a "damages payment" if there was a life or death need to nick it, such as needing to get someone to hospital).

Result: Nobody will steal cars in case they get the 40 years. It'll take a couple of "example" cases before the criminal community gets the message, but they'll get it eventually. After a couple of years we'll end up with a society where you can leave your car unlocked with the keys in it without fear of it being nicked.

Same for burglary and all crimes against "peace of mind" and "integrity of personal space".

There'll be need to build a couple more prisons but the key factor here is that the deterrent will keep those prisons from being full (look at it this way: we keep nukes but we've never had to use them because they're an effective deterrent just being there).

John Carter · 29-06-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I would actually scrap speed cameras altogether and go back to the police using their common sense and judgement.

Absolutely. Agree 100%.

Paul Birch · 29-06-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

But people also feel that if they were only used in accident blackspots, dangerous places (i.e outside schools) and to control speed through road works, they are a good thing - they no doubt help to control speed in those places where there is a good reason for the speed to be controlled.

I don't think many people do think that. But if they do, they're wrong. Speed cameras make roads less safe. There's one at the bottom of a steep hill on the way INTO phpbb_Newport. I have to keep my eyes glued to my speedometer and my foot on the brake to avoid inadvertantly slipping over the limit. I cannot look at the road at the same time. It's hard even to keep a straight line without wandering across the carriageway, let alone keep a lookout for other road users. Since they put in the camera I've never seen a pedestrian try to cross there any more. Whether that's because there are none, or because I just don't see them now ...

ops:

The same applies to so-called "traffic calming". One has to concentrate so hard on getting through the chicanes or over the bumps that one has no attention to spare for any pedestrians.

C_steam · 29-06-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

I don't think many people do think that. But if they do, they're wrong.

There's no point having a discussion really is there?

David Agnew · 11-07-2005, 02:38 PM

Thanks for your support C-steam.

I think that there are 3 'freedom tests' to consider when evaluating a surveillance system: 1. The privacy test 2. The 'hassle' test and 3. The public benefit test.

An Automatic Vehicle Tracking (AVT) system does not compromise privacy because the camera records publicly available information. After all, everyone can see you driving down the road. It is not a private act. AVT also passes the 'hassle' test because the presence of the camera shouldn't alter your behaviour in any way. It passes the public benefit test because used properly, it would significantly reduce crime. It could even save lives.

In my opinion building an AVT system should be included in UKIPs portfolio of anti-crime policies.

However, New Labour's scheme for compulsory ID cards fails all three freedom tests, and in my opinion, UKIP is right to oppose them.

mkpdavies · 11-07-2005, 03:00 PM

If I thought it wouldn't be abused the way Speed cameras already have, then I would probably be O.K with it.

Sadly, bitter experience teaches me it will be abused. If not now, then in the future.

How do you stop that from happening.

CCTV has been O.K so far and I guess this could be put INTO phpbb_the same bracket as that. I am mindful that we shouldn't cut our noses off to spite our faces when it comes to big brother style technology. I just hate to think of a corrupt government getting hold of such tools.

Can you imagine the fun Saddam, Hitler etc would have had with such systems! Total population control!

29-06-2005, 03:29 PM	#15 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	Of course, the way to stop cars from being nicked is a change in the justice system... 1) Keep the current system (guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"). 2) Add another layer onto it - guilty "beyond all doubt" - for those caught red-handed. 3) Minimum 40 years in solitary for anyone caught nicking a car without good reason (i.e. we'd let people off with just a "damages payment" if there was a life or death need to nick it, such as needing to get someone to hospital). Result: Nobody will steal cars in case they get the 40 years. It'll take a couple of "example" cases before the criminal community gets the message, but they'll get it eventually. After a couple of years we'll end up with a society where you can leave your car unlocked with the keys in it without fear of it being nicked. Same for burglary and all crimes against "peace of mind" and "integrity of personal space". There'll be need to build a couple more prisons but the key factor here is that the deterrent will keep those prisons from being full (look at it this way: we keep nukes but we've never had to use them because they're an effective deterrent just being there). __________________ There are three kinds of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

11-07-2005, 02:38 PM	#19 (permalink)
David Agnew Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maidenhead Posts: 296	freedom tests Thanks for your support C-steam. I think that there are 3 'freedom tests' to consider when evaluating a surveillance system: 1. The privacy test 2. The 'hassle' test and 3. The public benefit test. An Automatic Vehicle Tracking (AVT) system does not compromise privacy because the camera records publicly available information. After all, everyone can see you driving down the road. It is not a private act. AVT also passes the 'hassle' test because the presence of the camera shouldn't alter your behaviour in any way. It passes the public benefit test because used properly, it would significantly reduce crime. It could even save lives. In my opinion building an AVT system should be included in UKIPs portfolio of anti-crime policies. However, New Labour's scheme for compulsory ID cards fails all three freedom tests, and in my opinion, UKIP is right to oppose them.

11-07-2005, 03:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	If I thought it wouldn't be abused the way Speed cameras already have, then I would probably be O.K with it. Sadly, bitter experience teaches me it will be abused. If not now, then in the future. How do you stop that from happening. CCTV has been O.K so far and I guess this could be put INTO phpbb_the same bracket as that. I am mindful that we shouldn't cut our noses off to spite our faces when it comes to big brother style technology. I just hate to think of a corrupt government getting hold of such tools. Can you imagine the fun Saddam, Hitler etc would have had with such systems! Total population control! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29-06-2005, 03:00 PM	#11 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,797	Different issue Matt. That argument has nothing to do with the existence of the technology - it has everything to do with how that technology is being put to use. In short, people perceive speed camera's as a revenue generator, a stance with which I agree. But people also feel that if they were only used in accident blackspots, dangerous places (i.e outside schools) and to control speed through road works, they are a good thing - they no doubt help to control speed in those places where there is a good reason for the speed to be controlled.