Crime

David Agnew · 29-06-2005, 10:25 AM

This is an unusual idea, and it will take a bit of explaining, but I think that it is quite interesting.

Recently the government said that it is considering introducing national road pricing (in fact it is an EU scheme to find a use for the 'Galileo' satellite system, but the government kept quiet about that). I think that the idea of tracking vehicles automatically has a lot of potential - not for road pricing, which is a ridiculous idea (why can't we have a decent transport network instead?) - but for tackling vehicle related crime.

I don't think that a satellite based system is the way to go for the following reasons: 1. It would be very expensive 2. It would be intrusive (a satellite tracking device would have to be installed in every road vehicle) 3. If somebody didn't want to be tracked, they could easily sabotage the tracking device.

I would suggest replacing the country's speed cameras with more sophisticated electronic cameras (similar to the ones used for the congestion charge in London). Every time a vehicle goes past such a camera it should: read the number plate, take a digital photo, and note the time. It would then send the data to a central computer. The system could then pick up not just speeding drivers, but also those driving without tax and insurance.

It could be an immensely powerful anti-crime tool. For example stealing cars would become pointless, as they could be found immediately. (If your car is stolen, you phone the police and give them your car's registation number. The system would then tell the police where your car is).

It could be used to track getaway cars. For example if witnesses had seen a "blue BMW" the system could give the police a list of all the blue BMWs in the area at the time and their current location.

There are many other uses - the system could find hit-and-run drivers, fly tippers, people driving while banned, people who have driven off without paying for petrol etc.

Is this a good idea? Is it technically possible? Is it too 'Big Brotherish'?

Paul Birch · 29-06-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Agnew

Is it too 'Big Brotherish'?

Far, far, far, too Big Brotherish.

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 12:07 PM

WAYYYYYYYY too Big Brotherish.

Anything that gives the state the power to monitor the general public, mostly law abiding and not targeting the criminals themselves is a bad solution.

It makes the assumption that we will never have a dodgy government, who wouln't abuse this power.

I wouldn't trust this government, nevermind some future unknown government.

C_steam · 29-06-2005, 12:21 PM

Good post David.

Big Brotherish? What is big brotherish about this idea?

it could be argued that all you are doing is using existing information well and wisely. No further new information has been sought.

And this is the point, is it not? Once the information has been retrieved, the state can do what they like with it. So surely the 'big brother' aspect is the collection of the data in the first place, not the natural exploitation of that data.

Discuss.

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

I would suggest replacing the country's speed cameras with more sophisticated electronic cameras (similar to the ones used for the congestion charge in London). Every time a vehicle goes past such a camera it should: read the number plate, take a digital photo, and note the time. It would then send the data to a central computer. The system could then pick up not just speeding drivers, but also those driving without tax and insurance.

Your beginning to scare me now csteam. You don't think setting up a system that will track you exact location, and send to a centralised database is Big Brotherish?

What about a camera in your bathroom?

C_steam · 29-06-2005, 02:33 PM

You miss the point Matt.

The technology exists. Cameras cover the entry to the London congestion charging zone - they record every plate and at what time and where you entered the zone. The new style speed cameras record EVERY plate, and date/time/location.

All that was suggested is that this already existing data capture be extended to solve/help solve some crimes.

So, please decide, as is my point - is it the (slight) extension of the use of the data that is 'big brotherish' or the fact that the data already exists?

If it is the latter, then you must oppose all forms of vehicle surveillance by cameras and detector systems - in which case I wonder how you propose to manage to catch speeding motorists. If the former, then I ask why are you opposed to using existing data to catch criminals?

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 02:41 PM

I didn't miss the point.

Far from extending these powers, I would abolish ones already being abused/in place. This accpetance of what is already being done and then not seeing a problem in extensions on these powers is how Tyranny creeps in via the back door.

The whole congestion charge is a disgrace in my book. Driving the pesants off the roads, while tracking those that do choose to pay. This isn't what governement is supposed to do.

John Carter · 29-06-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Agnew

I would suggest replacing the country's speed cameras with more sophisticated electronic cameras (similar to the ones used for the congestion charge in London).

And there's me thinking along the lines of "rip every speed camera in the country down".

Seriously, I get a nasty feeling of being watched, not being free, every time I drive past one of them. It's oppressive.

C_steam · 29-06-2005, 02:47 PM

Good. I now understand that your views are that you would not use technology - in the form of cameras or other detector systems - to photograph or track cars or people.

Personally, I believe that technology has its place and can be a useful weapon in the fight against crime.

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 02:49 PM

Everytime there is a poll on speed cameras roughly 80% of the population come out against them.

They have been abused and don't actually provide the safety that they are supposed to. Indeed the drop in road policing means they could have had an adverse effect on safety.

Anger is building over these issues, many people do not accept the current situation, never mind adding to it. The police force is losing the good faith of the public, partly due to this reason too. If it isn't stopped, we could see real problems with law and order.

29-06-2005, 10:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
David Agnew Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maidenhead Posts: 296	Crime - Automatic Vehicle Tracking This is an unusual idea, and it will take a bit of explaining, but I think that it is quite interesting. Recently the government said that it is considering introducing national road pricing (in fact it is an EU scheme to find a use for the 'Galileo' satellite system, but the government kept quiet about that). I think that the idea of tracking vehicles automatically has a lot of potential - not for road pricing, which is a ridiculous idea (why can't we have a decent transport network instead?) - but for tackling vehicle related crime. I don't think that a satellite based system is the way to go for the following reasons: 1. It would be very expensive 2. It would be intrusive (a satellite tracking device would have to be installed in every road vehicle) 3. If somebody didn't want to be tracked, they could easily sabotage the tracking device. I would suggest replacing the country's speed cameras with more sophisticated electronic cameras (similar to the ones used for the congestion charge in London). Every time a vehicle goes past such a camera it should: read the number plate, take a digital photo, and note the time. It would then send the data to a central computer. The system could then pick up not just speeding drivers, but also those driving without tax and insurance. It could be an immensely powerful anti-crime tool. For example stealing cars would become pointless, as they could be found immediately. (If your car is stolen, you phone the police and give them your car's registation number. The system would then tell the police where your car is). It could be used to track getaway cars. For example if witnesses had seen a "blue BMW" the system could give the police a list of all the blue BMWs in the area at the time and their current location. There are many other uses - the system could find hit-and-run drivers, fly tippers, people driving while banned, people who have driven off without paying for petrol etc. Is this a good idea? Is it technically possible? Is it too 'Big Brotherish'?

29-06-2005, 12:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	WAYYYYYYYY too Big Brotherish. Anything that gives the state the power to monitor the general public, mostly law abiding and not targeting the criminals themselves is a bad solution. It makes the assumption that we will never have a dodgy government, who wouln't abuse this power. I wouldn't trust this government, nevermind some future unknown government. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

29-06-2005, 02:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	I didn't miss the point. Far from extending these powers, I would abolish ones already being abused/in place. This accpetance of what is already being done and then not seeing a problem in extensions on these powers is how Tyranny creeps in via the back door. The whole congestion charge is a disgrace in my book. Driving the pesants off the roads, while tracking those that do choose to pay. This isn't what governement is supposed to do. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

29-06-2005, 02:49 PM	#10 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	Everytime there is a poll on speed cameras roughly 80% of the population come out against them. They have been abused and don't actually provide the safety that they are supposed to. Indeed the drop in road policing means they could have had an adverse effect on safety. Anger is building over these issues, many people do not accept the current situation, never mind adding to it. The police force is losing the good faith of the public, partly due to this reason too. If it isn't stopped, we could see real problems with law and order. __________________ 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, 12:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,797	Good post David. Big Brotherish? What is big brotherish about this idea? it could be argued that all you are doing is using existing information well and wisely. No further new information has been sought. And this is the point, is it not? Once the information has been retrieved, the state can do what they like with it. So surely the 'big brother' aspect is the collection of the data in the first place, not the natural exploitation of that data. Discuss.

29-06-2005, 02:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,797	You miss the point Matt. The technology exists. Cameras cover the entry to the London congestion charging zone - they record every plate and at what time and where you entered the zone. The new style speed cameras record EVERY plate, and date/time/location. All that was suggested is that this already existing data capture be extended to solve/help solve some crimes. So, please decide, as is my point - is it the (slight) extension of the use of the data that is 'big brotherish' or the fact that the data already exists? If it is the latter, then you must oppose all forms of vehicle surveillance by cameras and detector systems - in which case I wonder how you propose to manage to catch speeding motorists. If the former, then I ask why are you opposed to using existing data to catch criminals?

29-06-2005, 02:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,797	Good. I now understand that your views are that you would not use technology - in the form of cameras or other detector systems - to photograph or track cars or people. Personally, I believe that technology has its place and can be a useful weapon in the fight against crime.