About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Watchdog warns over number plate snooping

By Richard Norton-Taylor for the Guardian

Monday July 16, 2007

Cameras that automatically record car number plates, a weapon in the fight against crime and terrorism, could breach human rights and privacy laws, the government's surveillance watchdog warned today.

Sir Christopher Rose, the chief surveillance commissioner, said that evidence obtained by the cameras could be challenged if used in court. Though he did not spell out his concerns in his first annual report published today, he said his position was "the same" as that of his predecessor, namely that new legislation was needed to resolve issues "arising from enhanced technological capability". The problem is that automatic photographing of number plates, with information passed on to the Highways Agency, can be classed as covert surveillance. However, it is not covered by existing laws regulating the use of covert surveillance.

Sir Andrew Leggatt, Sir Christopher's predecessor and like him a former appeal court judge, warned last year that the deployment of automatic number plate recognition constitutes surveillance when an identifiable image is recorded of a person in a vehicle. He added that it could also amount to obtaining private information about the person whether or not the individual had been identified in the context of a specific investigation or operation. He said the practice "will therefore be vulnerable to challenge unless it is authorised". The trouble, the surveillance commissioners say, is that if the number plate recognition system is set up to record any vehicle which is linked to a computer database, including that of the Highways Agency's camera records, it is unlikely that the system would be authorised.

Sir Christopher made it clear that the Home Office had ignored his predecessor's warnings of the need for new legislation to protect a system widely used by the police to pursue cars suspected of being involved in crime. Whitehall officials say that the system is also valuable in tracking terrorist suspects. The office of the surveillance commissioners was set up by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

[Paranoid….? Who me? I still think the way to go is just to barcode everyone from birth and have done with it – rather then this piecemeal process of turning us all into obedient little robotic citizens. I’m sure that the fact that I was bar-coded would make me so much safer than being anonymous little me.]

9 comments:

Aginoth said...

They'd never be able to read my Barcode, my Psoriasis would obscure it :)

Juggling Mother said...

I note that he is not saying it is wrong in any way - just that it not covered by current legislation. It generally takes parliament a few years (or a bloody expensive case) to catch up with new ides's/trends/technology - that's why we have the common law system as well.

I assume you do not agree with the whole concept.

I reallly did not have any problem with driving past the tax trap in Weston yesterday (although I am sure it can't catch all those 1000's of bikers!), other than the fact that it was unmanned and therefore did not do anything about the weaving, speeding, tailgating wanker in front of me!

CyberKitten said...

JM said: I assume you do not agree with the whole concept.

No, I do not. I much prefer an annoymous life. I don't like the idea of being spied upon by anyone, least of all a Government. The so-called justification for the growth of a surveillence society also cuts little ice with me. I fail to see how monitoring *my* movements makes me safer from hypothetical terrorist attack - though it might help to identify my remains afterwards [chuckle].

The creeping nature of this type of technology is deeply disturbing to me. It's easy to see where it could go if we let it. I may be slightly paranoid on this point [grin] but I fear that we might live to regret our indifference to such things.

Juggling Mother said...

"I fail to see how monitoring *my* movements makes me safer from hypothetical terrorist attack"

Well maybe, but it certainly makes it easier to trace the actual terrorists. As I've said before, nobody much is interested in you;-) You get seen and forgotten immediately. Actually, you rarely get seen. Unless you count being a bit of computer code.

It's not the technology of surveillance that is the problem, but the way it gets used. That's the fight I am willing to fight, but just to complain that the technology exists and is being used? That's a waste of time and rather reminicent of the Luddites - and we all know what happened to them!

CyberKitten said...

JM said: As I've said before, nobody much is interested in you;-) You get seen and forgotten immediately. Actually, you rarely get seen.

300 times a day in London apparently. The best thing to do is not get noticed... [grin].

JM said: It's not the technology of surveillance that is the problem, but the way it gets used.

Used & abused - the inevitability of Function Creep.

JM said: just to complain that the technology exists and is being used? That's a waste of time and rather reminicent of the Luddites - and we all know what happened to them!

Squished like bugs.....

Scott said...

Used & abused - the inevitability of Function Creep.

I don't know if you've ever seen Penn & Teller's show Bullshit, but there is a great episode about this.

Of course I'm quite opposed to these types of surveillance techniques. I'm sure they're quite good at catching "bad" guys, but I'm always nervous who defines which are the bad guys and which are the good guys.

sirkolgate said...

As a computer and business person I’ve spent my time ‘data farming’ at a university and I guarantee you that there are people out there who have devoted their lives to statistically quantifying everything to the point that you can reliably predict the buying patterns of the 18-24 male demographic as easily as you can predict tomorrow’s weather. Sure you’re still wrong at times, but you’re right enough to bet on it.

What scares me is that information is power and the ability to capture more and more details of our lives only opens the door for an extremely clever politician and a series of ‘bad events’.

dbackdad said...

"... I'm always nervous who defines which are the bad guys and which are the good guys" - Couldn't agree with you more.

It certainly seems that it's almost impossible to live a life "off the grid" any more. As much as we'd like for them to stay out of our lives, intrusion is becoming ubiquitous. Be that as it may, we shouldn't stop fighting it.

CyberKitten said...

scott said: Of course I'm quite opposed to these types of surveillance techniques. I'm sure they're quite good at catching "bad" guys, but I'm always nervous who defines which are the bad guys and which are the good guys.

Totally agree scott. I think that whoever is in control of the system defines who's been naughty & who's been nice.

sirkolgate said: What scares me is that information is power and the ability to capture more and more details of our lives only opens the door for an extremely clever politician and a series of ‘bad events’.

Doesn't it just - or the Government who wants to manipulate people into being a citizen in a 'better society'. There is just *so* much room for abuse with any technology like this!

dbackdad said: It certainly seems that it's almost impossible to live a life "off the grid" any more.

I 'play' with it sometimes by switching off my cell phone and only using cash for the day... [grin]. It is pretty hard though.

dbackdad said: As much as we'd like for them to stay out of our lives, intrusion is becoming ubiquitous. Be that as it may, we shouldn't stop fighting it.

Very true - and there are always ways and means to do so. At least you can make yourself less likely to be noticed by 'The Machine'.