Anpr

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Thats personal opinion - you must have eagle-eyes

No, just normal eye sight

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

You are living on cloud 9 - the police require a reason to stop a vehicle - we aren't living in '1984', however it is getting like that.

Read the Road Traffic Act 1988 and you will see how wrong you are.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

BS as the defendant was a woman, so references to 'He' are rubbish.

Read the quotes properly and you will see the links I provided refer to the case you posted.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

You stated that a phonecall/ having someone informed was a courtesy. No it is a Human Right, not to be held incommunicado.

PACE does allow a person to be held incommunicado in certain circumstances, and it also allows an inspector or above to stop someone having a phone call in certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Yes every case I have intimate knowledge of.

How surprising

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

ANPR is covert surveillance - how can you argue with that?

Given the size of the vans they use it is hardly covert And all ANPR does is to alert officers to a vehicle that has police reports attached to the vehicle record. Hardly surveillance is it. Would you say that officers sitting by the side of the road who doa PNC check and then stop a vehicle because of reports attached to it is surveillance?

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Lets regard your inability to provide laws as BS then

I have provided the laws, just read the earlier posts. We are still waiting for you to provide the evidence that ANPR is,as you claimed, illegal.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Cool I have a kawasaki GPZ 1100

2 BMW's and a Triumph. The wife has a couple of bikes too

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Thats a bit of a rubbish job then

I find it very rewarding and satisfying

[danny_kiernan]

Relevant documents available online:

Annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner to the Prime Minister and to Scottish Ministers for 2005-2006

Section 14 is the pertinent section, related to ANPR

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) - as a reference from the report above. Due to ANPR being Covert Surveillance.

BS 7958:1999 - Code of practice for the use of CCTV - the overview on that page is helpful, but to read the whole standard, you would have to buy it. For me to replicate it online would be a breach of copyright.

Data Protection Act 1998 - of particular interest is section 55.

Human Rights Act 1998 -as has previously been discussed.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - self-explanatory really

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Rob S

No, just normal eye sight
Given the size of the vans they use it is hardly covert And all ANPR does is to alert officers to a vehicle that has police reports attached to the vehicle record. Hardly surveillance is it. Would you say that officers sitting by the side of the road who doa PNC check and then stop a vehicle because of reports attached to it is surveillance?

ANPR is not just in the mobile camera units (the marked vans), it is also in standard marked police cars and unmarked ones - now that is covert surveillance.

In the so-called rings of steel around some cities there are general warnings that there are cameras, but not where. The ones in privately owned car parks, have generic CCTV signage (when they are in fact using ANPR and passing your data around), which is misleading - so they are also covert.
Also the practice of putting CCTV warning signs on roads as a traffic calming measure, when there are no cameras makes the signage where there are cameras null and void.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Relevant documents available online:

Annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner to the Prime Minister and to Scottish Ministers for 2005-2006

Section 14 is the pertinent section, related to ANPR

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) - as a reference from the report above. Due to ANPR being Covert Surveillance.

In the opinion of the office of surveillance commisioners of course. Others no doubt have alternative opinions.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

BS 7958:1999 - Code of practice for the use of CCTV - the overview on that page is helpful, but to read the whole standard, you would have to buy it. For me to replicate it online would be a breach of copyright.

I fail to see where CCTV comes in to this, but you are obviously trying to introduce as many red herrings as possible, given that much of the "advice" you have given is well wide of the mark.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Data Protection Act 1998 - of particular interest is section 55.

You obviously didn't take in this part of section 55:-

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows-

• (a) that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring-

• • (i) was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or

• • (ii) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court,

Dani, you obviously can not accept that much of the advice you have given is incorrect, flawed and dangerous. All you are doing by continuing to push your "advice" is digging yourself a bigger hole. If I was one of your clients I would have grave concerns about your competancy to do whatever it is that you do (which you are so coy about). But if you want to carry on, be my guest. I'll sit back and enjoy the spectacle

[danny_kiernan]

Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey - Independent Online Edition > Transport - interesting article
btw ANPR uses CCTV or still images to do the recognition, so CCTV does come into this

[Rob S]

I am still waiting for you to address points I raised earlier in this thread, but since you have resorted to using classic avoidance techniques I know I have no hope of you answering. Time to unsubscribe from this thread methinks, though I will pop back in from time to time to see if you are still digging

[danny_kiernan]

Which points? I have addressed pretty much all of your points as far as I can see - so what avoidance am I doing?

[danny_kiernan]

Just so you don't think I am avoiding a point

Originally Posted by Rob S

You obviously didn't take in this part of section 55:-

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows-

• (a) that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring-

• • (i) was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or

• (ii) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court,

I am fully aware of that part, the section pertains to 1 individuals data if it was necessary for preventing or detecting crime. It does not mean obtaining 10,000 innocent peoples personal data just to get one criminal.
10,000 is just a number I pulled out of the air, it is not a statistic as I do not know the exact ratio.

If you actually think that way, do you have a problem with the government having immediate access to everyones bank records (rather than by a court order), just to see if someone has been receiving too much money and is therefore guilty of a crime?

Originally Posted by Rob S

Dani, you obviously can not accept that much of the advice you have given is incorrect, flawed and dangerous. All you are doing by continuing to push your "advice" is digging yourself a bigger hole. If I was one of your clients I would have grave concerns about your competancy to do whatever it is that you do (which you are so coy about). But if you want to carry on, be my guest. I'll sit back and enjoy the spectacle

This is a statement made by you, not particularly a question or point raised, so how can I answer it?

[danny_kiernan]

Rob is right about the Brown Judgement in privy court - it is very hard to get hold of any paperwork relating to scottish cases, but I found a link

My solicitor has also advised me that the information I have given is in essence correct, however certain parts of it could be rephrased. Which I will be doing shortly.

BTW I am not a solicitor or involved in the legal profession in any direct way, except by taking to court(and being taken to court) and representing myself, except when I get forced to have legal representation by the court (in contravention of human rights).

[Rob S]

That's funny Dani, I could swear the link you have posted is identical to the 3rd link I put in post no.11 of this thread

If your solicitor has advised you that your advice "in essence" is correct, does that mean your solicitor believes that the police have to have probable cause to be able to stop a motor vehicle?

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Again Rob,

Much as you would like it to be - ANPR is not probable cause as it infringes human rights legislation and the data protection act in unison.

The DVLA have already been warned about allowing other agencies access to their data by the Information commissioner.

ANPR is also not perfect for quite a few reasons:
1) A bit of mud on the licence plate can make the plate come up as an entirely different plate using the ANPR filtering.

2) A licence plate can be cloned quite easily (I have no knowledge of how they do this), so for example a car is stopped for an offence, the offence goes back to the original car, where the person is totally innocent.

3) A previously dodgy car is sold to someone, they have it MOT'd fixed and pay for insurance,tac etc, then it gets flagged up still for around 1-3 months and the owner will not be very happy.

4) A typo on the DVLA or PNC - making a car drivers life misery, due to 1 number/letter input incorrectly.

5) Malicious intent - someone working at DVLA or on the police system inputs a licence of a person they do not like.

6) System crash - where all the data gets muddled on a backup retrieval.

7) Data transmitted incorrectly, via the polices mobile data transfer service.


I could go on and on

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

Please do not say that the DVLA system is infallible, because that is total rubbish

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Hi Again Rob,

Much as you would like it to be - ANPR is not probable cause as it infringes human rights legislation and the data protection act in unison.

The DVLA have already been warned about allowing other agencies access to their data by the Information commissioner.

An ANPR 'hit' is probable cause. There is no infringement of the Data Protection Act because a VRM does not identify a person - it identifies a vehicle and the ANPR check flags vehicles of interest. Further, the is no Human Right violation because, despite some owners giving them pet names, a vehicle isn't human.

The Police ANPR system does not use the DVLA database directly - it is one of several feeds to the PNC. The DVLA has a statutory obligation to provide information to the Police. (the current furore about the DVLA giving out info is to do with private parking companies).

ANPR is also not perfect for quite a few reasons:
1) A bit of mud on the licence plate can make the plate come up as an entirely different plate using the ANPR filtering.

2) A licence plate can be cloned quite easily (I have no knowledge of how they do this), so for example a car is stopped for an offence, the offence goes back to the original car, where the person is totally innocent.

3) A previously dodgy car is sold to someone, they have it MOT'd fixed and pay for insurance,tac etc, then it gets flagged up still for around 1-3 months and the owner will not be very happy.

Once it has been stopped once and proven 'clean', it is removed from the database.

4) A typo on the DVLA or PNC - making a car drivers life misery, due to 1 number/letter input incorrectly.

ANPR works on the basis of positive match. A misread does not trigger action (it is a 'negative' match)

5) Malicious intent - someone working at DVLA or on the police system inputs a licence of a person they do not like.

This is true where there is human intervention in any computer system. However, in this case is it a disciplinary/sacking offence.

6) System crash - where all the data gets muddled on a backup retrieval.

7) Data transmitted incorrectly, via the polices mobile data transfer service.

The whole point of a data back-up is to have a copy of the data that is not scrambled. The data checking routines prevent incorrectly transmitted data being presented.


I also note from earlier in the thread your claim that ANPR systems are only loaded with local data - this is nonsense. There is no data loaded into an ANPR device - it works in real-time contacting the PNC for a match. The N in PNC stands for National. If a VRM is flagged, any Police ANPR in the country can spot it.

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by patdavies

An ANPR 'hit' is probable cause. There is no infringement of the Data Protection Act because a VRM does not identify a person - it identifies a vehicle and the ANPR check flags vehicles of interest. Further, the is no Human Right violation because, despite some owners giving them pet names, a vehicle isn't human.

No it is not probable cause (as we have all turned american), and yes some of us are sad enough to give our vehicles names.

Originally Posted by patdavies

The Police ANPR system does not use the DVLA database directly - it is one of several feeds to the PNC. The DVLA has a statutory obligation to provide information to the Police. (the current furore about the DVLA giving out info is to do with private parking companies).

That is a statement which is total rubbish - the DVLA does feed directly to the PNC. The recognition software (which I wrote some of) then translates the number plates to items, then by pattern matching returns a hit or a miss.

Originally Posted by patdavies

Once it has been stopped once and proven 'clean', it is removed from the database.

No it is not, the information is used in a clandestine information gathering scheme. Via Mapping journeys.

Originally Posted by patdavies

ANPR works on the basis of positive match. A misread does not trigger action (it is a 'negative' match)

No a misread brings up another alarm, someone who is trying to disguise their numberplate- and they get pulled.

Originally Posted by patdavies

I also note from earlier in the thread your claim that ANPR systems are only loaded with local data - this is nonsense. There is no data loaded into an ANPR device - it works in real-time contacting the PNC for a match. The N in PNC stands for National. If a VRM is flagged, any Police ANPR in the country can spot it.

No the police onboard PC's have only 200Mb of storage space, so they download the local vehicles, local criminals etc, otherwise they would run out of storage,. The presumption that a police car interfaces with the PNC and DVLA on every occurence is ludicrous - the bandwidth required for that would blitz all the mobile phones in the area.

Dani

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Hi Again Rob,

Much as you would like it to be - ANPR is not probable cause as it infringes human rights legislation and the data protection act in unison.

You keep going on about probable cause, but it is irrelevant in the UK. As I have said before, and also posted up the relevant legislation, police do not require probable cause to stop a vehicle in the UK. They have powers under the Road Traffic Act which enable them to stop any motor vehicle at any time.

Whoever has put this idea in your head is totally wrong.

And once again (said with feeling ), ANPR is a tool used by the police. If an alarm sounds relating to a vehicle then police will stop it using their RTA powers. It does not infringe human rights legislation or the Data Protection Act and it is not illegal.

You have stated that it is illegal a number of times but you have failed to provide any proof to back up your claims.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

The DVLA have already been warned about allowing other agencies access to their data by the Information commissioner.

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest given their track record.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

ANPR is also not perfect for quite a few reasons:
1) A bit of mud on the licence plate can make the plate come up as an entirely different plate using the ANPR filtering.

Indeed. So someone gets stopped but the matter is easily resolved.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

2) A licence plate can be cloned quite easily (I have no knowledge of how they do this), so for example a car is stopped for an offence, the offence goes back to the original car, where the person is totally innocent.

Those damn criminals, going round cloning car registration numbers Again, if an innocent member of the public gets stopped, at least they can get the matter sorted out and the police can then place a report on the vehicle record to show that the plate has been cloned.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

3) A previously dodgy car is sold to someone, they have it MOT'd fixed and pay for insurance,tac etc, then it gets flagged up still for around 1-3 months and the owner will not be very happy.

So its the actions of a criminal again who is causing the problem, not ANPR. At least if they get stopped the issue can be sorted so that the data relating to the vehicle can be updated.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

A typo on the DVLA or PNC - making a car drivers life misery, due to 1 number/letter input incorrectly.

Easily rectified, and a rather weak argument against the use of ANPR.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

5) Malicious intent - someone working at DVLA or on the police system inputs a licence of a person they do not like.

Someone working in a solicitors office could cause all sorts of problems for an individual by acting maliciously. Another weak argument.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

6) System crash - where all the data gets muddled on a backup retrieval.

7) D