NO2ID

Would I be able to send a subject access request to the police to ask them to send me the records they have about my car's location? I'm the only person that drives my car so it wouldn't tell me about anyone else.

Try it and see (and report back, please). They might argue that you may be checking up on a wife/husband.

OK, I'll be sure to include that I'm the only driver of the car.

Do you know the address I can write to? A Google search suggests the National ANPR Data Centre (NADC) is in Hendon but I can't seem to find an actual address.

Would this be the correct place to write to?

Also, I suspect a reason they might deny me the information is because to do so would reveal the locations of the cameras. I know they will not disclose locations under FOIA requests.

I agree. This would be a really useful thing to know (although I suspect they'd probably refuse to provide you with the information).

I sent an email to the police asking for the address of the relevant data controller for the ANPR database. The reply I got seemed to think I was asking for information about a speeding ticket I received and suggested I contacted the relevant force's switchboard.

If you write to your local force disclosure unit (the people to whom you would normally direct a Freedom of Information request), they should know where the request should be sent.

The cameras are very easy to identify. I know where all the ANPR spy cameras are in my area. I wonder, has anyone put a map on the web showing the locations? I'd do it but my web design skills are not up to it.

google earth can have its uses sometimes. spy on the spies. its got speed cameras, shouldnt be too difficult to add ANPR camera info to it too.....

ANPR cannot spy. It does not see people. It cannot track vehicles either.

It has many positives such as saving lives in assisting to capture killers and terrorists, it also helps in the fight against crime very effectively too.

Perhaps we should focus on the poor applications of good kit and not ANPR; especially if the application is not ANPR specific. [/quote]

We are fully aware that ANPR is not in itself necessarily "evil". It should be clear from people's postings that the primary objections are to the uses to which it is being put.


It could if it was networked. Oh, wait - a lot of it *is* networked already!

Finding stolen cars etc is all very well but retaining the information of every vehicle passing is not necessary for this purpose.

Well theft, serial murder, terrorism are all pretty heavy stuff. Most of the worrys about ANPR are not valid or even ANPR specific.

It is only a vehicle database.

Yes we can oppose it's applications if they are poor.

Take speeding. How many, apart from me, actually respond to speed limit orders, as we all should and then submit objections to them? No speed limits or higher speed limits mean less speeders. I can't see the point of focussing on kit at the expense of the focussing on the real issues.

Why not oppose the lens or reflective paint? Without those ANPR wouldn't work.

You forgot the "won't someone think of the children" bit.


1) odd definition of "most"
2) does not invalidate those worries


ANPR itself is not. But you deliberately miss the point. ANPR is no longer a standalone box and has not been for some time now.

The concerns are over the ANPR data being databased, networked, processed, analysed for pre-emptive action and a whole host of other (effectively) unaccountable things that nobody was ever asked about.

Even when 'only' tracking vehicles, you are effectively tracking an individual or a very small group of individuals who are the driver(s) and/or owner(s) of that vehicle.

Well anyone can worry about myth and nonsense



Not missing any point. None of the objections I have heard are actually true but why attack a system May as well scrap the lens or the reflective paint too or computers. Everything has applications, good or bad. We should be focussing on applications not objects. That is a pure waste of good energy.



But it doesn't track vehicles. Tracking is following the whole route from a-b
ANPR doesn't do that and no it has no clue who is in the vehicle at all. If we are to make a case then it must be an accurate one surely

You are taking your quest for accuracy well into the realms of unnecessary pedantry. Deliberately I think but I will reply anyway.

If a system records vehicle X passing through points A, B, C, D, E in a short space of time and this is not a form of tracking then what word would you suggest is used?
Remember that the information is already being stored for at least a couple of years and that the networking and central databasing of ANPR data is already well under way.


If the vehicle has not been reported as stolen then it's not unreasonable to suggest that one of more of the authorised drivers will be in it.

???


Oh but of *course* it is.


No. Mass logging of all vehicles passing through those points. The number of those points is set to increase.


Alternatively we trace its path through the seris of points where it was recorded. Or we select a series of points and see which vehicles took that route.


Only if it gets to court. Such exact proof is not required for harrassment or investigation or anything else for that matter. Suspicion is sufficient for arrest.

Ah some runaway rhetoric. I don't know anyone who has been 'harassed' by or because of ANPR. But this is not an ANPR specific issue anyway. Compared with other countries the police here are quite soft.Harassment is a matter of perception or poor application. Can hardly blame a lens or reflective paint for that surely

If you are recording all vehicles (yes) passing through an increasing number of points (yes) you approach this capability.


Search the ANPR database to see where it has been, set flags on the number to notify when it passes through any of the monitored points. By your definition even an active radio and GPS unit would not report a vehicle's exact location all the time, what with time between "pings", the inaccuracy of GPS itself, relativistic effects on fast-moving vehicles, and localised gravity variances.


See previous comments about networking, databases of recorded information and so on as to why we are already clear that this is the issue in relation to ANPR, not ANPR technology in and of itself. The whole networked, databased, cross-referenced ANPR system is usually referred to as just "ANPR" because that's easier than typing "the whole networked, databased, cross-referenced ANPR system" every time. As I think you are well aware.

It is better to warn about things before they happen, preferably ensuring that they can not happen at all, not wait until the whole apparatus is already in place and abuses occurring.

The networked, databased, cross-referenced ANPR system already exists (in its infancy) and pending confirmation (there are references here somewhere) I think one of the stated aims was in fact for "vehicle tracking".

If I understand you correctly your point is that the ability to recognise a car number plate automatically is not, in and of itself, a bad thing in the same way that a database is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It's technology that can be applied in a number of ways, some of which are of concern. An ANPR camera that doesn't actually do anything with any of the number plates it reads does no harm. Moreover, it's not the camera that's the problem: it's the system that aggregates the number plate movements, together with ownership details, to build up a picture of the (potential) movements of an individual (the owner may not be driving) that is worrying.

I think that when many people (myself included) refer to ANPR we are referring to the system not the ability to recognise a car number plate automatically.

I don't know anyone who has been 'harassed' by or because of ANPR.



Except that what is never mentioned is that this is not about people--it cannot even track and so far it hasn't. And this is very misleading. What is also ignored are the major life saving issues that can only be achieved by ANPR and yet the negatives quoted either don't apply to ANPR or applied anyway before ANPR.

What concerns me is that a very good cause,No2ID,is going to undermine itself by attacking something of great benefit to the community on dodgy or untrue statements. It can be accused of wishing the authorities to be hamstrung and without the best technology in the fight against crime, injury, murder, terrorism and so on? The question why? throws considerable doubt on the rest of the campaign. On trying to examine the rationale, I find that all there are are vague predictions, Orwell's 1984 came and went and 25 years later still isn't real, and incorrect statements. I would rather oppose ID databases, not in principle but for other worrying effects , than be shot down by adding ANPR to the debate but only by omission and exaggeration. Why risk a good movement?

Maybe it is important to leave out the term 'ANPR' since this is a specific very useful crime fighting tool; the villains and terrorists don't walk or go by horse any more. By all means attack the management and security of databases on people. The fingerprint database is more about people do we scrap that system? Do we scrap the Gun database too? See where this leads in terms of incredulous questioning?

Don't risk the credibility of No2ID on it I am suggesting.

On the one hand you are claiming that ANPR can not track people and then you go on to say that is a useful crime fighting tool against villains and terrorists who are ... people! Ther terrorists involved in the London tube bombings didn't walk or go by horse - they went by public transport. And surely terrorists and criminals that chose to use vehicles with number plates would use stolen ones or fake plates. The question is whether the privacy invasions associated with the use of ANPR, combined with DVLA and other data, to monitor the movements of drivers is proportionate given the issues that monitoring is attempting to address. I would argue that ACPO and others promoting ANPR have yet to demonstrate proportionality.

Personally I am not worried at all. There are far worse things going on. I really cannot afford to get worried about a crime fighting tool. Most people I know are not worried and have far bigger issues. I am more annoyed that I now have to filter rubbish in my kitchen under pain of death. Most people really don't care about 'spying' at all and I am one of them. I am very against ID cards but for practical reasons which I know would impact on the public far more than the 'privacy' aspect.

I do appreciate the honesty that the term 'ANPR' is being used for convenience, however, other associations are now taking this literally and attacking ANPR the system. This easily undermines any other cause that they are concerned with and could easily undermine No2ID the same way.

Perhaps it would be better if 'ANPR' were not used and carefully avoided then. In any case there needs to be a distinction between data records of people and machinery. Data on machinery is not new at all and it would be expected that this technology applies to management of motor vehicles too. This would be very difficult to deny and retain credibility. No2ID is about data on people ANPR isn't and that is a very big leap.

Oh yes you can! For some years now, the police have been busy erecting a country-wide network of fixed ANPR cameras and that's precisely what they do.

The data is stored in the UK National Vehicle Tracking Database and all constables have (or will have) access to it.

All they do is record vehicles that were at that point. That is not tracking.

These events are merely stored and are only drawn for a target vehicle when needed. It is impossible to 'track' vehicles (follow them everywhere they go) by ANPR because ANPR does not do that. The manpower required to do that would be 1 person 24/7 for watching each vehicle, a minimum of three watchers for each target plus leave day and holiday cover.

Info in a database is not surveillance.

However that is still academic. So what if they do? It's a national transport system being administered here so what? Do it with pens pencils and clipboards?

Never the less you are against a policy not the kit which is the point. ANPR is pure equipment, its uses are good and bad just like knives and glass and microchips. Fight the uses has to make more sense than fighting tools.

A debate cannot be decided by pretending something untrue. ANPR cannot track anything and especially not people.

Hope that helps No2 ID, a good campaign, to get its story right

BT