Anpr

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Coniff,

Originally Posted by Conniff

I don't see how anyones algorithm or who wrote it, or even the language it is written in has any bearing whatsoever on the 'legality' of ANPR. It could be written in basic for all that matters.

You are quite right that language, doesn't have much difference, a few milliseconds here and there, doesn't matter. The mathematical algorithms used DO matter however, as they are the difference between 1 alphanumeric character and another. For example, if an image is analysed on a sunny day, with reflection a D may appear as a B, also if an image is analysed on a rainy day a C may appear as a G due to the path of rain being photographed at the same time.

Originally Posted by Conniff

You stated that you wrote some of the code, well if that is true then why don't you point out the errors of the present system and offer a solution?

Firstly, I did point out the errors, whilst in development - which were ignored.
Secondly, I have no intention of helping any covert surveillance system out whatsoever, the original remit was to make sure that peoples cars, which were driven into a car park, would be driven out of the car park by the same person, who entered - to prevent vehicle theft.

Dani

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Firstly, I did point out the errors, whilst in development - which were ignored.
Secondly, I have no intention of helping any covert surveillance system out whatsoever, the original remit was to make sure that peoples cars, which were driven into a car park, would be driven out of the car park by the same person, who entered - to prevent vehicle theft.

Dani

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you helped develop this system thinking that it would be only used for that specific purpose? You must be incredibly naive if you really thought that. I suspect you knew exactly what you were doing and how it would be developed for future use and so on.

I suspect the only reason you are now engaging in this crusade against it is because you have an axe to grind against your former paymasters for undisclosed reasons.

[danny_kiernan]

Rob S,
You are clearly very naive yourself, Alfred Nobel invented dynamite in 1867 - as a tool to help mining, he had no idea that it would become part of some of the most horrendous weapons known to man. I am not saying that I am a genius like Nobel, but that it is possible to be mislead, by canny salespeople - I actually believed I was involved in something which would help people.

I have no axe to grind with my previous paymasters, as I was paid for what I did - the 3rd party usage of the application for covert surveillance does annoy me though - as I have always been against covert surveillance in all its forms (unless there is a reasonable excuse for using it, via a court order).

I guess you are going to try and rubbish anything I say anyway, due to your own personal agenda, well thats your perogative, but once you stop licking the DVLA's (edit) and actually think about the things that I and other people have said on this forum, you will see the truth ( I hope).
Dani

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Rob S,
I have no axe to grind with my previous paymasters, as I was paid for what I did - the 3rd party usage of the application for covert surveillance does annoy me though - as I have always been against covert surveillance in all its forms (unless there is a reasonable excuse for using it, via a court order).

So you are against the police using covert surveillance to gather evidence against drug dealers, paedophiles, street robbers and any other criminal then?

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

I guess you are going to try and rubbish anything I say anyway, due to your own personal agenda, well thats your perogative, but once you stop (edit) the DVLA's ass and actually think about the things that I and other people have said on this forum, you will see the truth ( I hope). I will leave you to your (edit) anyway (as it is a pursuit best experienced totally alone)
Dani

Well, you have done a good job of rubbishing your own stance by making wild claims and failing to back them up when challenged

As for your personal insults, it's further proof that your argument is flawed when you have to make personal comment about another poster here.

[danny_kiernan]

Firstly, you did not read the part of my post, which you even stated:
as I have always been against covert surveillance in all its forms (unless there is a reasonable excuse for using it, via a court order).
Drug dealers, paedophiles, street robbers etc come under reasonable excuse.

Personal insults, not really - it appears that you have your tongue firmly up the states bottom, so I state it like that. I have read all of your 966 posts and 77.56% of them seem to support the state, not consumers. If no-one believes me, please read through Rob S's psts, you click his name and then you get a list of posts.

[livelylad]

Gents, please discuss the issue. Do not trade personal insults, should this continue I shall close the thread.

Thanks.

[Conniff]

danni - if you had just drawn a couple of thousand from the bank to pay for you mothers life saving operation and was consequently 'mugged' and that money taken, are you suggesting that you would not allow the use of the cctv system that caught it all and could identify that mugger? because you seem to be continually saying that by not agreeing with any covert surveilance.

[Conniff]

Another thing I am not understanding:

If their is nothing physically wrong with your car, the police are in breach of the human rights act article 8 - right to privacy, you should inform them of that in a calm collected manner.

Are you saying that police can only stop you if there is a physical defect with the car?

In most cases the police will now let you go. However in some cases they will carry on and arrest you (which is an unlawful arrest) unless there is a physical defect on the car, in this case follow these guidelines:

Arrest you for what?

.

[Rob S]

Conniff,

It was explained to Danni long ago in this thread about the powers that the police have to stop vehicles on the road under the Road Traffic Act, without there being the need for "reasonable cause" (as Danni put it). In short, police can stop a vehicle for the purpose of seeing if the driver has a licence, valid insurance cover and a current MOT (if the vehicle is over 3 years old). But Danni doesn't seem able to grasp this.

Danni,

Your "reasonable excuse" comes with the caveat of needing a court order to allow them to do the covert surveillance. So everytime the police get a tip off or receive information, which may have to be acted on there and then, you expect them to trot off to court and get an order to allow them to carry out the surveillance? If you think that is what they should do then you really are living on another planet.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Personal insults, not really - it appears that you have your tongue firmly up the states bottom, so I state it like that. I have read all of your 966 posts and 77.56% of them seem to support the state, not consumers. If no-one believes me, please read through Rob S's psts, you click his name and then you get a list of posts.

You've read every single post I have posted on CAG? How did you manage that? I ask because when I click on the function that allows me to view all my posts, it only shows the last 100, going back to the 31st July. Could you tell me how you managed to read every single post please?

Once again, is it necessary to make comments like the one you made above?

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Conniff

danni - if you had just drawn a couple of thousand from the bank to pay for you mothers life saving operation and was consequently 'mugged' and that money taken, are you suggesting that you would not allow the use of the cctv system that caught it all and could identify that mugger? because you seem to be continually saying that by not agreeing with any covert surveilance.

Well aside from the fact that, the circumstances you describe would never happen, I do not have a problem with surveillance as long as it is obtained by a court order.

[Conniff]

So the councils have to get the courts permission to install cameras on every corner. I didn't realise that and if that is the case then why don't commercial premesis have to have the courts permission to have cameras?

It was just a senario, but I am intrigued by the other question I asked as I was stopped for what I thought was no reason at all.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Well aside from the fact that, the circumstances you describe would never happen, I do not have a problem with surveillance as long as it is obtained by a court order.

So you would be quite happy to introduce another layer of bureaucracy for the police to have to navigate their way around in order for them to look at evidence that could be useful in arresting a suspect?

And you say that people who draw money from banks don't get robbed? Perhaps you could back that up with some proof?

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Conniff

Another thing I am not understanding:

Are you saying that police can only stop you if there is a physical defect with the car?
.

I probably didn't explain properly - the police can stop you for other reasons,this list is not comprehensive:
Exceeding the speed limit
Suspect in a robbery
Harbouring a fugitive
Visible Tax disc out of date
etc.

They are however breaching human Rights Legislation by stopping you based on a centralised database (which is not accurate), just because they have flagged your vehicle up as of interest to them.

I hope that explains it better

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Rob S

So you would be quite happy to introduce another layer of bureaucracy for the police to have to navigate their way around in order for them to look at evidence that could be useful in arresting a suspect?

This has worked in other countries, for years (the USA for example), so I am happy for another layer of bureaucracy yes.

Originally Posted by Rob S

And you say that people who draw money from banks don't get robbed? Perhaps you could back that up with some proof?

No, people get robbed at banks all the time, the particular scenario that Conniff described, would never happen to me though.

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Conniff

So the councils have to get the courts permission to install cameras on every corner. I didn't realise that and if that is the case then why don't commercial premesis have to have the courts permission to have cameras?

Well at the moment, no - they have to abide by sections of the Data Protection Act and are supposed to follow the codes of practice (which a lot don't), These are available at Information Commissioners Office.co.uk

Originally Posted by Conniff

It was just a senario, but I am intrigued by the other question I asked as I was stopped for what I thought was no reason at all.

I think I missed a question, could you repeat it please