It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

License-plate scanners: Crime-fighting tool or invasion of privacy?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


But if you go past one of those speeding checkpoint, and are speeding...you did something wrong....you set off the system, it records your plate and you get a ticket.
If your neighbor writes down your plate....say, you side-swiped a parker car...you did something wrong...I have no problem with that.

Versus recording every car the camera passes....with no wrongs by 99.9% of the people...that is an invasion of privacy IMHO.




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


But if you go past one of those speeding checkpoint, and are speeding...you did something wrong....you set off the system, it records your plate and you get a ticket.
If your neighbor writes down your plate....say, you side-swiped a parker car...you did something wrong...I have no problem with that.

Versus recording every car the camera passes....with no wrongs by 99.9% of the people...that is an invasion of privacy IMHO.
then they put up AVERAGE SPEED CAMERAS where if you go over 60 mph in say 40 miles of solid cameras no need for police cars .

a few weeks later you get a ticket in the post it is nearly impossible to keep to the limits on most of those roads with caravans/lorrys etc it is not unknown for someone to lose a licence and a thousand in a month .

drive a white van and it can get you stopped for no reason and the vehicle inspected for 30+ minutes tank dipped for red diesel then you are questioned by the tax/benefits to check you .

cash cows is all we are it looks like skynet is alive in the u.k all railway stations have facial scanners and most bus stations as do most housing estates even in small 3+k towns all public transport and taxi,s .

my t.v could even be watching me
and i might even have my camera on in my computer if i had one very photogenic or paranoid



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

I agree with your observations DTOMe. Your right about that.

Coincidently...tonight going down my street in the dark, a LED sign on a tree lit up as I approached (wasn't there before today) and flashed
POSTED SPEED:25mph
YOUR SPEED : 21mph

Right or wrong and whether we like it, want it or not...the US is becoming more like the UK where there are cameras everywhere.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 

Very well said GeoBro!



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I fail to see how ANPR is a breach of privacy. Your on a public road. Don't want to be flagged for doing something wrong? Don't do something wrong - make sure your have a valid license, insurance, tax and you're good to go. I have no sympathy for people who are pinged by the ANPR for having no insurance or license as they shouldn't be on the road.


geobro
then they put up AVERAGE SPEED CAMERAS where if you go over 60 mph in say 40 miles of solid cameras no need for police cars .

a few weeks later you get a ticket in the post it is nearly impossible to keep to the limits on most of those roads with caravans/lorrys etc it is not unknown for someone to lose a licence and a thousand in a month .


I have a good tip on how to avoid being caught by average speed camera's - don't speed..... Doh...

I am puzzled as to your logic here by saying it is "nearly impossible to keep to the limits on most of those roads with caravans/lorrys etc". No, it isn't nearly impossible, it is entirely possible to keep to the speed limit no matter what traffic is on the roads


geobro
drive a white van and it can get you stopped for no reason and the vehicle inspected for 30+ minutes tank dipped for red diesel then you are questioned by the tax/benefits to check you .


Given the way most white vans are driven, I don't find it surprising that they get stopped often. They are, without a doubt, the worst drivers on the road.


geobro
cash cows is all we are it looks like skynet is alive in the u.k all railway stations have facial scanners and most bus stations as do most housing estates even in small 3+k towns all public transport and taxi,s .


Now you're just talking bollocks. Facial recognition is not in widespread use in the UK and trials of it have often not proved to be that successful. I've not heard or seen any evidence of it being in use on the railway, in housing estates, on buses or indeed in taxi's. I think you're confusing general CCTV systems with facial recognition software.

edit on 3/11/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

crankyoldman
If you have alloidal title, which you do not, you can do as you please. You cannot get alloidal title to your car,


Very wrong - you do have it. You can sell your car, destroy your car, drive it on your own property as much as you want and no one will stop you. You do not pay anyone else to do those things.

As those who do not like ANPR - you will probably find they are unlicensed/suspended drivers, or the car is stolen, or they put different plates on it or it is not registered....
edit on 3-11-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


go ask the guys at the railway stations who work there one told me about the camera in 2005 and most council areas where i am have cctv .

get friendly with the head cop in the area do some work in his home i did amazing what you can find out



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


There is no need to ask "the guys that work in the railway station" - it's a matter of public record. There have only been trials in small area's of the UK and for the most part, the software has not been much better than simply posting pictures on FB or Flickr and asking people if they recognise them - they did a trial after the 2011 riots and the FR software failed totally. They got far better results merely making the photo's public and asking the general populace.

I think you're getting confused between general CCTV and the use of FR software. CCTV is in widespread use (mainly by private users not the "Government") - FR is not.

If you really want to test the idea though, contact any organisation or authority that uses CCTV - under the DPA they must advise you of any information that they hold on you, for a small fee (£10 max). You will soon know if they use FR or not.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


The simple answer is yes, license plate scanners are both a crime fighting tool and an invasion (another invasion) of individual privacy..if any privacy still exists that is, and that is debatable.

But the question is, where do we draw the line?

After all, if every single person is forcably locked up during the night in their homes, and electronically tagged during the day, has to submit a detailed report their daily movements and deliver it to a local police station, then crime would go down...but at what cost?

We'd no longer have a society, but instead have a massive prison in it's place.

What would be the point?

Crime is a product of an unfair societal system...the majority have very little, and a small minority have very much...this produces criminal behaviour, anger, feelings of hopelessness and injustice, and violence.

The solution is simple...make society MUCH fairer for all. Redesign everything to be on a more equal footing, and crime except for perhaps crimes of passion, would all but dissapear.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

MysterX
Crime is a product of an unfair societal system...the majority have very little, and a small minority have very much...this produces criminal behaviour, anger, feelings of hopelessness and injustice, and violence.

The solution is simple...make society MUCH fairer for all. Redesign everything to be on a more equal footing, and crime except for perhaps crimes of passion, would all but dissapear.



I'm afraid it isn't that simple though, is it? What about "white collar crime" where otherwise well off people commit fraud, tax evasion or outright murder to enrich themselves further? Crime happens at all levels of the society, not just at the bottom - it is rather unfair of you to imply the poor are potential criminals and the rich aren't. Changing the world into some sort of Communists wet dream would not get rid of crime.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

hellobruce

crankyoldman
If you have alloidal title, which you do not, you can do as you please. You cannot get alloidal title to your car,


Very wrong - you do have it. You can sell your car, destroy your car, drive it on your own property as much as you want and no one will stop you. You do not pay anyone else to do those things.

As those who do not like ANPR - you will probably find they are unlicensed/suspended drivers, or the car is stolen, or they put different plates on it or it is not registered....
edit on 3-11-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


You have in your possession the original title itself, not a copy, but the original title and the State you live in has none? How did you do that?

If you have it, your car cannot be towed, or ticket and there is no need to register - for those who do not know.

Kudos to you man, I haven't met anyone that was able to accomplish this. How?



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

they keep uninsured drivers off the road here in the uk and for me that is a good thing



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tom.farnhill
 


So, have your insurance rates gone down as a result of this?
Here we have a part of our car insurance that helps pay for uninsured accidents.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Not really, at any time there is an estimated 1 million uninsured drivers on the roads, which actually is proof that we can't be under the constant surveillance some people think we are.

That said, those that do drive uninsured or without a license tend to be repeat offenders even if they are caught - they simply don't care. They'd happily spend £200 on a rust bucket, take the few hundred quid fine, have the car seized and do it again the next day when they might not be caught for months - works out cheaper for them I suppose, but if they should have an accident or worse, a great pile of crap usually falls on their heads.

In my opinion though saving a few hundred quid is not worth the risk of getting into an accident, because if they find you without insurance or a license, you're toast. It's one set of laws I follow to the letter, it's not worth the hassle.

EDIT: I will say though that we now have these telemetry boxes you can get put in your car, which saves an absolute fortune and proves your a good driver, so you can get your insurance down by doing that. I only passed this year, aged 30 would you believe, and I got quoted £1400 3rd party, fire and theft for my A6 without a box or £900 fully comprehensive with a box.
edit on 3/11/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

Well, it shows you are not under the level of scrutiny I would think you are...or that those who are uninsured don't give a rat's behind.
Same with being licensed to drive I would think.
There are tough drunk driving laws here....talk about making one toast...but folks continue to drive drunk...and then drive drunk and unlicensed.

I also would not be surprised in the least if people are being fully surveiled....but the follow-ups are a bit lax, the court system is overburdened.
So, how efficient is the system???
Is the system working for your country as it was intended??



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by tom.farnhill
 


So, have your insurance rates gone down as a result of this?
Here we have a part of our car insurance that helps pay for uninsured accidents.

Oddly enough,yes in certain circumstances they have gone down.I recently re-insured my work Corsa van as a private light goods vehicle (private car instead of goods which it isn't used for),and it was cheaper to insure it fully comprehensive than it was third party only.
Fully comp.................................................£200
Third party only (the lowest level of cover).............£260

As a commercial vehicle it was more to insure than my modified R32 Golf which is in the same class as Ferraris etc.£800 for the van and £360 for the Golf.

So they're encouraging us take out better cover which should benefit all motorists but at a reduction in revenue for them.
edit on 3-11-2013 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 

Forgot to give my views on the actual topic here.

Yes I do think they're a good idea and don't in any way invade our privacy.The only problem I do have with taking human eyes off the roads and replacing them with this type of thing is that it can't catch bad drivers.We still need experienced Policemen in cars to catch people doing things like using their mobile phones while driving,cutting other motorists up,acting like total plebs,or having lights out or bald tyres etc.
I really don't have a problem with increased electronic surveillance on our streets and highways because I'm an honest and law abiding citizen.I don't have a problem with Google keeping a record of all the websites I visit.I don't have a problem with the Google Now app on my mobile phone being able to "learn" my daily rituals.I don't have a problem with the chance that someone could be tracking me 24/7 via my cellphone signal,in fact all this actually makes me feel less paranoid and more secure knowing that someone is always watching over me.
Anyone who does have a problem with any of the things I've mentioned must have something to hide I'd guess?



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
We don't have many traffic cameras around here, I've been looking into how to fight them though. Right now I like the idea of attaching some IR lights to my car that shine on the license plate, wired into the rest of the lighting so that they're on if my lights are on. It doesn't physically obstruct the plate but it shuts down cameras. When I've looked into it so far I've seen people trying to use IR LED's and they don't work all that well. I'm sure there's a way to do it though.


stumason
I have a good tip on how to avoid being caught by average speed camera's - don't speed..... Doh...

I am puzzled as to your logic here by saying it is "nearly impossible to keep to the limits on most of those roads with caravans/lorrys etc". No, it isn't nearly impossible, it is entirely possible to keep to the speed limit no matter what traffic is on the roads


It's not always that simple. I'm a "slow" driver myself, I only drive the speed limit whenever possible. On some roads around here though doing so makes you a road hazard, and in large cities this is even more true. It's more important to match the speed of traffic than to adhere to a limit when there's a significant difference between the two.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 

I really don 't get peoples reluctance or inability to just drive slower.I'm sure you know you get a heavier fine if you're caught tampering with your number plates than you do if you're actually caught speeding.And how is driving slower or at the speed limit more dangerous that driving faster,that makes no sense at all?
It's not rocket science is it,no matter what your views are on the road traffic laws,if you don't want to pay penalties for speeding,then don't speed.This really is the only answer to this "problem" so many people seem stuck with.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Imagewerx
reply to post by Aazadan
 

I really don 't get peoples reluctance or inability to just drive slower.I'm sure you know you get a heavier fine if you're caught tampering with your number plates than you do if you're actually caught speeding.And how is driving slower or at the speed limit more dangerous that driving faster,that makes no sense at all?
It's not rocket science is it,no matter what your views are on the road traffic laws,if you don't want to pay penalties for speeding,then don't speed.This really is the only answer to this "problem" so many people seem stuck with.



I have no desire to speed, like I said I drive at the speed limit, usually a couple mph under it. When you're on a road where the limit is 60 however and all the traffic around you is going 85, the fact is you are a road hazard. It's safer for everyone involved including yourself to go 85 in that situation. If a cop is around they can and will actually give you a ticket for driving too slowly compared to the rest of the traffic, even if you're the only one not speeding specifically because it makes the road more dangerous for everyone.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join