CCTV Network Tracks Getaway Car

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that a 'pioneering number plate recognition system in Bradford played a vital role in the arrests of six suspects' after the murder of a Policewoman - within minutes of Friday's shootings, police were using the system to track the suspected getaway car." From the article: "When a car is entered on the system it will 'ping' whenever it passes one of our cameras, which makes it a lot easier to track than waiting for a patrol car to spot it."

So that's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

So because it has one good use does that mean we should ignore all the possible misuses?

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[Anonymous Coward]

the murder still happened. stop crime or criminals? there is a difference. if that policewoman had a gun there'd be two dead criminals.

Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont

[close_wait]

Probably explains why there are about 35 fatal shootings each year in the UK, and 11,000 in the US.

Re:So that's OK

[Stickerboy]

"So because it has one good use does that mean we should ignore all the possible misuses?"

I don't know. Have you deleted your Peer-to-Peer filesharing programs yet?

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[aslate]

Before all the US gun-loving "If the police had guns..." people have their way, have a look at the BBC "Have your say" page on the question "Should the police be armed? [bbc.co.uk]".

A large number of both UK and US citizens have posted that they prefer a non-gun possessing police force, including a large number of police, some from Bradford where this happened.

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[Spectre]

Who watches the watchers?

I know of suspicious/vindictive/controlling/abusive people who if they had the power to see where their spouse/ex-spouse/SO would certainly abuse the priviledge by doing so.

I find it hard to believe that buddies of buddies wouldn't use something like this to say "hey, keep an eye on my SO, I've got to be on stake-out for the next few nights"

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[crabpeople]

"Perhaps if/when they extend it to track all vehicles as a matter of course, I'll be worried about some Orwellian nightmare"

1) What makes you think they aren't?
2) What makes you think you'll be able to stop them then?
3) Do you think its impossible that some 'security agent' monitoring these cameras, doesnt want you going out with his ex wife and abuses the system?

If they put cameras everywhere, everyone should have access to those cameras. Not a select few as it is currently. Anything else is 'us' against 'them' (police/state), and youd best be sure which side your on.

"What is now real was once only imagined..."
Guess that means you should care then

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

it doesn't fully explain how the police use it

[Anonymous Cowpat]

do they:
1) input a number plate that they want to track and it pings every time they pass a camera, discarding records of number plates which aren't the ones being tracked (i.e. recognise plate, check against list of plates being looked for, if it's not on the list, discard)
2) record every number plate and look through the logs to look when a particular one passed a particular camera, then keeping the logs until forever.
3) some sort of hybrid, like keeping the logs for 24 hours to see what happened earlier in the day, but killing them after that. (like some sort of caching system)

No1 I'd just about support (so long as there were adequate safeguards to make sure that it was only used to track suspects (not potential suspects) and I'd just about stretch to No3 so long as the logs really were being killed.
No2, however, is a BIG no-no. Automated camera systems to track the movements of every car in the country and then keep that on a permanent record are VERY bad (although I suspect that is what happens). When did spending a vast sum on public money on an automated system to track the car-using public go through parliament?

And another thing, where do the police get the idea that it's a given that they can 'deny the use of the roads to criminals'? take this very case, right now these people are SUSPECTS they haven't even been charged, as such they aren't 'criminals'. Someone explain why being a suspect means that you're no longer entitled to use the roads without being tracked? They'll be wanting tracking bugs in shoes next 'to deny criminals use of their feet'

You live in an absentee citizen state: Rejoice!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who watches the watchers?"

Back in my day they used to be called citizens. What are you all using now?

Re:Sigh why was he modded informative

[blackraven14250]

Just because the police don't have the right to, doesn't mean the police couldn't just as easily make up probable cause. Seriously, do you think that just because they're police officers, that they abide by the law?

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[IAmTheDave]

It's even simpler than this. What this is is a repeatable pattern of using an invasive technology, showcasing an instance where it does some good, and people accepting that particular little anecdote as sufficient enough reason to give up the very privacy the technology invades. Being watched constantly will ensnare ner-do-wells - it's true.

But there's that "at what price?" question just hanging there with these little privacy invasions like a noose around its neck. It's great that this murdered woman's killers were caught. But at the price of being constantly watched, constantly scanned, for the rest of my life? No, thank you.

chicken or egg?

[leehwtsohg]

I think that a system just introduced could not explain anything that happened in the past. Maybe one needs to ask why with 35 fatal shootings in the UK, the state thinks there is enough cause to track 60,000,000 people who are innocent until proven guilty.

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[arivanov]

Well... If the system was so good why the f*** did the car get all the way from Bradford to London? That is 4+ hour drive across half of the country.

What you are seeing here has nothing to do with the merits of the system. It has something to do with typical newsmanagement by Tony Bliar cronies. Similar to the one they tried on the "Good day to Burry Bad News (9/11)". They want to push this system as a replacement for speed cameras with the difference that speed will be checked every 400m, not in specific locations. Further to this you have the transport secretary which is waiting in the wings to use the same network for charging per road use.

The only problem - the road users are just a few inches short of wanting to lynch 'em both. So what do you do in this case - get good publicity. And this all this is about. And using the death of a mother with 4 kids in the line of duty for this is as appaling as it can get.

By the way who is the criminal idiot who sent two unarmed, untrained women without body armour to investigate a reported armed robbery in progress?

Re:So sophisticated...

[tolan-b]

1984 was also deliberately extreme to show the problems with a surveillance society, as is often the case in fiction.

Re:I for one

[mustafap]

>No ... because 12 out of the last 13 people hung later turned out to be innocent.

I think the last person shot was innocent too.

So now the criminals know.

[MtlDty]

Brilliant. The one good use for the ANPR system (tracking criminals) has now become public knowledge. That means your local gang-land thugs will find a way to avoid their registration plate being scanned (custom plate with obscure font). Meanwhile, every other law abiding joe normal will continue along their merry way, quite happy being scanned and tracked because "it's to help catch criminals".
We end up with a system that spies upon and punishes the law abiding citizens that make accidental mistakes, whilst letting the professional criminals find an easy loophole. Its good to see my tax money finding new and creative ways to rape me of my income.

Re:You live in a police state: Rejoice!

[LWATCDR]

In this case it is a good thing. The question is how do you prevent it being abused? Or should you even worry about it. Do you have a right to privacy on while on a public road?
I would say these are good questions to ask. Their isn't a simple good or bad answer to this. It does need to be discussed.

Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont

[Aphrika]

I have more freedom through 60 million people not having guns than I do by me having one...

Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont

[jrumney]

i suspect that there's a very small portion of the us population which accounts for an overwhelming majority of the gun related incidents. factoring that portion out, the us and uk end up being on much more even ground.

Ummm, yeah. By eliminating data you don't like, you can make statistics say whatever you like. Congratulations.

Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont

[Space cowboy]

Well tickle me pink and call me Norman, but I'd rather have my car stolen than my brains blown out.

Maybe it's just us Brits that see the advantage.

Simon.

Tall Blond Man

[trurl7]

Back in 1972 there was a French movie called "Un Grand Blond Avec Une Chaussure Noire" [imdb.com] (The Tall Blond Man With One Black Shoe). In the movie, the chief of French secret service lays a trap for his rival - he convinces him that a particular man is a dangerous and cunning secret agent that is planning to expose the rival's dirty secrets. This rival then goes crazy trying to investigate this "agent". The truth is that the man is, in fact, what he appears to be - a clumsy orchestra player. The movie is summed up with these lines:

"...because when looked at closely enough, every man's life is suspicious".

Individually, any of these systems may appear to do good things in individual cases. And the arguments for them always center around certain immediate benefits without considering the wider picture. The bigger truth is that such systems lead to a society full of anxiety, fear, and guilt, with arbitrary and random enforcement of the rules. There's a word for such conditions - the word is "despotism".

Re:This is why I use....

[CapnOats.com]

They may be completely legible, however by using them you are obstructing the police's ability to do their job. That is a crime.

That or they'll just give you an asbo, the cure all for non-crimes that they want to do you for anyways.

It might not be fair, but you should never have to use a spray/plate anyway. If you honestly believe you have a valid reason for doing whatever speed you're doing then appeal against the fine.

Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont

[Pantero Blanco]

Yes, I would rather live in a free society where there was a greater chance of my family being raped and murdered than a police state where they were completely safe. We'll defend ourselves and keep our rights, thank you very much. Some people talk about "saving lives" as if it were a worthy end goal. I'd rather half the people in my country die and the rest live as men than all of them live safely as sheep.

Public Eye

[Doc Ruby]

We've got to accept that the police, the government, like anyone else, can observe us in public. But we've also got to ensure they don't take that too far, invading our privacy. Like keeping records of public observations too long, or cross-referencing with private info without just cause, or even invading our privacy beyond the public access.

And we've got to apply that consistency to the police and government employees themselves. Public employees should be monitored, even if those records are available only to duly authorized government overseers. Every official should be recorded for review. Including police officers. The police especially would benefit from being monitored, if we replaced their "paperwork" to just fast-forwarding video with voice annotations that are transcribed. Then they can spend more time dealing with criminals and each other than with forms and bureaucracy. And their "witness" roles would all produce much more accessible evidence to be used by the rest of the justice system. Rather than having to believe an officer's "word", which gradually undermines its credibility, police videos would make it faster, cheaper, easier and more reliable to administer justice. And budget-strapped precincts could auction the bloopers to C.O.P.S. shows.

Re:So that's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between those cases is that one is an empowering technology for people, while the other is an empowering technology for the government. Government has to be held to a much higher standard due to their sheer size and power over any one man.

Re:Shooting?? I thought the UK had strict gun cont

[Space cowboy]

First, very small amounts of the US have higher rates for theft *OR* violent crime than England. Those places also have a significantly higher population density than London.

Second, most places in the US with very high proliferation of firearms have much lower crime rates than England.


Neither of which explains why there are ~11,000 fatal shootings in the US per year, and only ~35 in the UK. This is using the OP's figures, I haven't looked it up, but I do know it's a major news event when someone gets shot in the UK. There was one (1) local (within a few miles) shooting in my 15 years of living in London...

[snip pointless rant about history - that of which you speak was in place before your country was. The founding fathers went to the new world to seek religious freedom, not to escape any royal censure. It's easy to claim a clean history when you haven't had much of it, apart from the whole slavery thing, of course. Oh yeah - freedom for *whites*...]

As for your last comment, let me re-iterate. I'd rather be stabbed than shot, too. I have a higher chance of survival. I'd rather be hit by a blunt object than shot too. I have a higher chance of survival. Perhaps it *is* just us who see the advantage...

Actually, looking at the figures, and (being generous) given that the US has some 5x the UK population, there must be some *really* *really* nasty places in the USA if your two assertions are to hold. 5x35 = 175. 175:11,000 ~= 1:63...

Take the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the splinter from mine (or something like that, I never paid much attention to that religious bollocks - the lesson is valid though)

Simon

Re:Parent post is full of misinformation

[Willuknight]

mod this post up, very informative and interesting.

Re:Parent post is full of misinformation

[titzandkunt]

"Important when the populace is entirely unarmed and at their mercy"

Cop has no gun: Citzen has no gun - it's a decent balance of power, no?

Seriously, I see a lot of this kind of sniping, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of logic behind it.

Say you're in a state where open or even concealed carry is legal, you're in a confrontation with a cop and you decide it's going badly, so you draw on him/her. What happens now?

• He backs off and forgets about it? Yeah , sure.

• You shoot double-taps, aiming for the centre of mass (ie. to disable & hopefully kill, but let's not use such impolite language)? Now you're a hunted felon - yeah, innocent until proven guilty, but how many cop-killers get a "self defense" or other "justifiable homicide" verdict? You're a felon all right, it's just a matter of time until the label can be made to stick.
  
  You've got the full attention of the criminal justice system focussed on you. If captured and tried, you can obviously expect the DA to be calling for the harshest possible sentence against a merciless mad-dog killer...

Me, I prefer a society where as few people as possible have access to firearms.

I'd like to own a weapon, try my hand at the range (which I haven't done since the Air Training Corps many moons ago). OTOH, I'd be scared shitless if my crazy neighbour had similar easy access to deadly ranged weapons.

That's the crux of it: I'd like to own a weapon. I'd absolutely hate to feel I needed to own one.

T&K.