NationStates Jolt Archive

Surveillance on drivers may be increased
Cameras could be used to catch those ignoring phone and seat belt laws

Duncan Campbell and Rob Evans
Tuesday March 7, 2006

Guardian

Drivers talking on mobile phones or failing to wear seatbelts could find themselves tracked down through a widened use of road surveillance cameras, under proposals due to be floated in parliament tomorrow. The plans would form part of a major expansion of camera surveillance which critics say is already transforming Britain into the most watched country in the world.
The case for cameras to be focused on people using mobiles as they drive is made by the independent adviser to the transport select committee, Robert Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts).

He argues that automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology should be applied in new ways to help defray costs of cameras and to catch offenders. "One of the good things about ANPR is that people are often multiple offenders so it would provide useful intelligence," he said. "Those responsible for 7/7 got to Luton station by car."

Mr Gifford said expanding the use of technology for tracking the movements of cars could lead police to people who had committed other offences in the same way that Al Capone was eventually caught through his income tax evasion. He claimed that for greater safety and "the greater good of society", most people would be prepared to accept "a slight reduction of our liberty".

Existing road cameras divide into two groups: speed cameras, of which there are around 6,000 nationally; and up to 8,000 ANPR cameras which trigger a reaction when wanted, stolen or cloned number plates or uninsured cars are spotted. Under the proposal, police would also look out for mobile phone users and seatbelt offenders. Those arguing in favour of expanding the cameras cite the continuing death toll on roads and the threat of terrorism. In 2004, 3,221 people died in accidents and 31,130 were seriously injured.

It is also argued that the cameras bring in essential revenue.

Department of Transport figures released under the Freedom of Information Act indicated that total fine receipts for speeding and traffic light offences detected by camera in 2003-04 were £113.5m, of which nearly £92m was "reinvested in road safety as payments back to ... the police, local highway authorities and magistrates courts". The Treasury retained the balance of nearly £22m.

Tomorrow's transport committee session and a further meeting next week will examine how far this technology can be expanded and what use can be made of the data. Evidence will be presented by bodies representing the police and organisations that campaign on road safety.

Any attempt to widen the application of camera surveillance is likely to be strongly resisted.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign which opposes cameras, said: "Ministers and senior civil servants are largely being persuaded that technological interventions are a good idea by those with a vested interest in the technology. The sums involved are huge."

Mainstream motoring organisations also have reservations. Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA Motoring Trust, believed that current technology was not good enough to implement the idea properly: "It would be difficult to prove whether you were holding your mobile phone or scratching your ear."

A spokeswoman for Liberty said increasing the use of cameras to catch drivers breaking the law would not be a curb on their civil liberties.

Wow, what an atrocious idea, although they've already done the atrocity of installing cameras in public, so this would only carry it a bit further.

I'm sorry, how is it releveant that the 7/7 attackers went to the station by car? How the fuck would that knowlege have made a difference? The terrorism argument here is, frankly, BS.

This if a decidedly stupid idea. You'll just see a rise in the number of tinted windows.

Good. They shouldn't be on their mobiles without a hands-free kit whilst driving any way.

I don't really see a problem with it. It's not as if being watched in itself is something that removes liberty; you're not invisible when you walk about.

I would support it if it were used post-event, ie used to catch people who had already committed a crime. I think any attempt to use it to predict crime does have serious implications for liberty.

Never work where I live. They had traffic cameras for a short while, but it was so hot - the cameras melted.

Gets up to 40C here :p

Good. They shouldn't be on their mobiles without a hands-free kit whilst driving any way.That hardly justifies an invasion of privacy by the government.

I don't really see a problem with it. It's not as if being watched in itself is something that removes liberty; you're not invisible when you walk about.Being stalked doesn't remove liberty?

I would support it if it were used post-event, ie used to catch people who had already committed a crime. I think any attempt to use it to predict crime does have serious implications for liberty.How do you know that it would always be used post-event?

That hardly justifies an invasion of privacy by the government.
Why not? I'd rather the government stopped them doing it than they ran me over with their privacy intact.
Being stalked doesn't remove liberty?
I hardly think a camera that only activates if you're doing something wrong in the first place is stalking. It would be better to compare it to the police monitoring a suspect rather than a criminal stalking the innocent.
How do you know that it would always be used post-event?
The law, the courts, freedom of everything, and a bit of trust rather than cynicism.

Suveliance is fine as long as it is in the public sphere. It can only move into the private sphere on an individual basis when evidence gathered by suvilence in the public sphere shows a need for it. Liberty is only in danger when this kind of suveliance moves into the private sphere on a permenant basis.

Why not? I'd rather the government stopped them doing it than they ran me over with their privacy intact.Being run over is a separate issue, which could happen while someone is on their cellphone or if they're changing the radio station or if they've spilled their coffee. Not worth having everyone be watched.

I hardly think a camera that only activates if you're doing something wrong in the first place is stalking. It would be better to compare it to the police monitoring a suspect rather than a criminal stalking the innocent.How is a camera that monitors if someone isn't wearing their seat belt going to come on only when someone isn't wearing a seat belt?

The law, the courts, freedom of everything, and a bit of trust rather than cynicism.Freedom of everything includes the right to privacy.
What has the government done that shows you can trust them?

If people would actually follow the law and drive even close to the speed limits, then I'd be opposed, but every single day on my way home from work, I drive through a school zone at 20 miles an hour - while people on cell phones blow past me at 45 mph.

If you want to break the law, then that's up to you, but don't get pissed off when you get caught.

Being run over is a separate issue, which could happen while someone is on their cellphone or if they're changing the radio station or if they've spilled their coffee. Not worth having everyone be watched.
Yes, it could happen with all these things. Better to reduce the number of distractions rather than simply through our hands up and ignore them, however.
How is a camera that monitors if someone isn't wearing their seat belt going to come on only when someone isn't wearing a seat belt?
I have no idea, to be honest, it's not my area of expertise. Number plate recognition technology is already in widespread use, however.
Freedom of everything includes the right to privacy.
What has the government done that shows you can trust them?
I don't think that being seen in a public place is an invasion of privacy. If they start pointing the camera in my home, perhaps, but not on a public highway.

Yes, it could happen with all these things. Better to reduce the number of distractions rather than simply through our hands up and ignore them, however.You don't have to put your hands up. I'm not saying you should ignore them, I am saying that surveillance cameras aren't the way to go about it, though.

I have no idea, to be honest, it's not my area of expertise. Number plate recognition technology is already in widespread use, however.True, but that would only catch someone if they were known criminals driving the same car.

I don't think that being seen in a public place is an invasion of privacy. If they start pointing the camera in my home, perhaps, but not on a public highway.It's not simply a matter of being seen. If it were one or two cameras, perhaps it would be, but there are enough of them to track your movements, essentially stalking you.

It's not simply a matter of being seen. If it were one or two cameras, perhaps it would be, but there are enough of them to track your movements, essentially stalking you.
I can't think of any reason why they would want to track my movements, though, other than if I was under suspicion for something. Why would anyone waste time, money and effort watching me doing a weekly shop?

I can't think of any reason why they would want to track my movements, though, other than if I was under suspicion for something. Why would anyone waste time, money and effort watching me doing a weekly shop?1) If they're paranoid enough, they'll watch anyone.
2) If they're perverts and just want to know what you're up to.
3) To see if you go into a porn shop or somesuch and try to blackmail you.

And that's just off the top of my head.

If I've learned anything from the Labour government, it's that privacy is a privilege, not a right. I was quite skeptical at first, but I'm very glad now that Labour was voted into power. Maybe in a couple of years they'll remove these inefficient elections to make sure we are protected by them indefinitely.

Freedom is an illusion anyway. Nobody on this forum is free. Nobody in this country is free. As far as I know there's only one country in the world where anybody could be considered 'free', and that's considered a disaster area. Labour is just making us see this with our own eyes.

They do this in America.... namely they put cameras at stoplights to see if you've gone through at a red light, and they then just send you a ticket in the mail.

Sure they might not be watching your other activities NOW, but what about in the future... if this type of law is accepted to be "ok" it then sets a precedent for further laws monitoring your activities and leaves the potential for corruption in the future.

For instance, my grandfather beleives that Americans who burn the American flag should be thrown in jail. Sure I wouldn't burn the flag, but I sure as hell don't agree with him, it's their civil right to, but if he had his way, people WOULD BE.... what if a law like that comes along.... and they say "we're going to use the camera to catch people burning the American flag".... doesn't that start to sound a bit scary?

Now this is Britain you're talking about, but the same thing could happen there... I personally find the whole "national ID" thing to be a bit scary.

"we're going to use the camera to catch people burning the American flag"

Don't people normally do that in front of a camera/other people anyway?

Now this is Britain you're talking about, but the same thing could happen there... I personally find the whole "national ID" thing to be a bit scary.I agree here, too. I think someone should have the right to not have an ID if that's what they want.

If I've learned anything from the Labour government, it's that privacy is a privilege, not a right.
No, privacy is a right, and I believe it is the most one of the most important of all rights. I just don't believe that being caught for doing something wrong is an invasion of privacy.

If I've learned anything from the Labour government, it's that privacy is a privilege, not a right. I was quite skeptical at first, but I'm very glad now that Labour was voted into power. Maybe in a couple of years they'll remove these inefficient elections to make sure we are protected by them indefinitely.

Aren't they already onto it?


They do this in America.... namely they put cameras at stoplights to see if you've gone through at a red light, and they then just send you a ticket in the mail.


Haven't some states (namely New Hampshire and some others) voted to remove/turn down these schemes?

No, privacy is a right, and I believe it is the most one of the most important of all rights. I just don't believe that being caught for doing something wrong is an invasion of privacy.

Sounds to me like your mind cleansing hasn't taken effect properly. I'll inform Protector Blair at once...

Aren't they already onto it?

I am sure that they would tell us, their loyal citizens, if they intended to do such a thing. Honesty is Protector Blair's hallmark quality don't you know. All that stuff about postal voting was just propaganda spread by the anti-British.

Oh, here, enjoy:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008662.html

I present to yuo, Step Two.

Oh, here, enjoy:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008662.html

I present to yuo, Step Two.

Oooh... excellent! All we need now is a Bill they can twist and use to imprison political opponents... oh wait, don't they already have one of those too?

Well, how else would they be able to check if people actually wear safety belts and don't use mobiles while driving? Be realistic, people.

Well, how else would they be able to check if people actually wear safety belts and don't use mobiles while driving? Be realistic, people.

Same way they did before cameras.

Mind you, this is one of the reasons I oppose seatbelt laws.

Eventually they will be able to mount cameras inside cars, so you'll have audio/video. With the advent of on-star, they can already listen in if they wished.

Cars are moving from a hunk of steel and rubber to mobile computer systems. There is so much data a car can send back to (well, anyone really) it's maker via the systems we are already buying, and in some cases paying extra for!

Right now I use a magnetically coded card to open the door to my office. It has an effective range of about 12". Change that to a slightly more powerful version (card and sensors) and the range could easily be 5 feet. So, if they liked the owners of the building can see when I come and go, and for a slight investment, they could know where I am in the building within 5ft. Cameras in the break room would effectively tell them if I'm grabbing some coffee or just chatting with a buddy about the game.

Really, like an earlier poster said, Freedom is an illusion. The only freedom you'll ever have is that of your own mind (at least for now, check this out: http://www.gizmag.com/go/3423/ ) and the freedom to choose how you act.
I choose to go the speed limit. It's a choice I make every time I get into the car. On the other hand, I also don't freak out every time I see a cop.
I choose to wear my seatbelt. I've worn it so consistently and constantly, then when I can't put it on I feel uncomfortable.
I choose to not go around breaking laws. It's not that hard. If the government put a little camera on my shoulder and followed me around and litteraly watched every single thing I did, I don't think that they'd have any reason to come after me.

So what's the problem with them putting cameras on the streets? For me, nothing. I don't break the law, so it won't adversely affect me. For some of my friends? They could easily lose the privelidge of driving completely. They are vehemetly opposed to having cameras anywhere.

Look at the other implications. You're sitting at a red light and a drunk driver smashes into you. You're dazed and in pain, all you hear is squeeling tires as the other driver pulls around you and takes off. You've just been the victim of a hit & run. What are you going to do? The cop will come and talk to you and be sympathetic, but unless you had the presence of mind to whip out a notepad and jot down the licence of the other car, the only punishment they recieve is a repair bill for their car.

What if you're car immediatly called the police/ambulance if you were in an accident? The rearview camera pops on and takes a snapshot of what hit you.

Medical help already on it's way and you have a picture of (at the very least) front of the car that hit you.

That's pretty good, but what if there was a camera on the intersection? Then you have the make, model, color and probably a picture of the person driving as well. A clear indication of who's fault and if there was a crime.

Yes, there is a potential for abuse of such a system, but then again you can abuse almost any system if you put your mind to it.

Despite how many people may dislike this idea, we are putting more things around us that allow other people to watch us. Camera phone, webcams, on-star, we are the ones that are building the network they will use to watch us. So be it, but let's not kid ourselves, it's going to happen, it's only a question of how close they watch us, and if we have something to fear from that. How easy is it now to get pulled over and tell a cop that you only had 1 beer...right now the cop can't call the bar and check what you bought with your debit card, but sooner or later they are going to figure that trick out. It's all on computers, and more and more stuff is getting put on computers and being recorded.

Everyone watches everyone. The only way to get away from it is to move to a deserted island with a volleyball as a companion.

Of course, the satillites will still be able to see you :)

What's wrong with cameras on public streets? In public you can be watched by anyone. In fact on public streets you are already being watched by law enforcement officers to ensure the safety of eveyone on the road. Why not help the law to help you? This will make the law more efficient in finding traffic offenders and thus make the streets safer.
If funding is there, I would want to see cameras in more public places, especially crime ridden areas. Never in private places though, unless installed by the property owner and due notice is given (like in a store).
Of course alot of care must be given so these cameras are only used for the right reasons and by the right people. Videos of public streets shouldn't become a matter of public record.

I choose to not go around breaking laws. It's not that hard. If the government put a little camera on my shoulder and followed me around and litteraly watched every single thing I did, I don't think that they'd have any reason to come after me.

So what's the problem with them putting cameras on the streets? For me, nothing. I don't break the law, so it won't adversely affect me. For some of my friends? They could easily lose the privelidge of driving completely. They are vehemetly opposed to having cameras anywhere. I see you've also fallen victim to the myth that only people who have done something wrong have anything to fear. I've given plenty of examples as to how this can be abused without you having do have done anything wrong. What's puzzling to me is that you seem to accept this and don't mind it.

Furthermore, some of the other technology that you mentioned is done by the individual's choice. If the individual wants to have OnStar in their car, they will, and that's fine, but they shouldn't be forced to have it in their car if they don't want it.

What's wrong with cameras on public streets? In public you can be watched by anyone. In fact on public streets you are already being watched by law enforcement officers to ensure the safety of eveyone on the road.Law enforcement officers don't follow you around every place you go. You can be watched by people in public, but they can't stalk you. There will be enough cameras on the streets that you will be effectively stalked.