Big bro & numberplates

[Big Dave]

Probably not a bad thing? Dungers off the road. Smacks of eye in the sky though. Wotcha?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1225776016300

[SMOKEU]

"The units are capable of reading number plates in front, beside and to the rear of the police vehicle, and can also capture details when travelling at up to 180km/h".

Sweet, I've got to get a faster bike and the speed limiter removed from my car then.

[Laava]

I don't have a problem with it, BP have similar in their gassers now and so it could be programmed to cut off gas to the pump you are at if you are dodgy. No doubt there will be issues re privacy etc but hey, if you need privacy why would you be on the road in the first place?
Any Greenies here tonight?

[AD345]

For me it falls into the "just becoz you can do something it doesn't mean you should" catagory - which is getting very full of late it must be said.

48 deaths per month, 12 unregistered vehicles involved in fatal accidents in the last year......

seems a thin excuse for more powers of surveillance to me

but thats just me

[Molly]

This technology has been in use in the UK for a number of years. The vehicle registration database is cross referenced with the road tax database and an insurance database. The cops can tell automatically the legal status of a vehicle. It does however require that motorists are using legal size and style number plates.

I've no real problem with it.

[wickle]

"The units are capable of reading number plates in front, beside and to the rear of the police vehicle, and can also capture details when travelling at up to 180km/h".

Sweet, I've got to get a faster bike and the speed limiter removed from my car then.

seen these on TV, a english cops program.

[jono035]

it is one of these things that seems very innocuous but boils down to population tracking.

I already dislike the idea of any automated license plate recognition systems. Taken to the extreme they result in a map of when and where each vehicle travels. Systems like this are then prone to abuse.

It is the slippery slope towards a massive breach of privacy for something that I wasn't aware was all that much of a problem in the first place...

[Molly]

For me it falls into the "just becoz you can do something it doesn't mean you should" catagory ... seems a thin excuse for more powers of surveillance to me

No disrespect but what would you expect the authorities to do with this kind of capability? They're not going to say: "Well, that'd be useful but let's not in case it upsets someone".

Surveillance has been with us since the first census (so, thousands of years). Bureaucracy is the first form of surveillance but it's important to note that the very same technologies which point out from governmental bodies can also point inwards and allow greater measurement and accountability.

Ultimately, anything that makes life harder for crims and those scumbags who don't want to pay their share is fine with me.

[jono035]

No disrespect but what would you expect the authorities to do with this kind of capability? They're not going to say: "Well, that'd be useful but let's not in case it upsets someone".

Surveillance has been with us since the first census (so, thousands of years). Bureaucracy is the first form of surveillance but it's important to note that the very same technologies which point out from governmental bodies can also point inwards and allow greater measurement and accountability.

Ultimately, anything that makes life harder for crims and those scumbags who don't want to pay their share is fine with me.

The difference is that with modern technology surveillance has the ability to get much more pervasive. The line is basically between automated data collection and manual data collection. I don't mind giving the police the ability to identify my car if I drive past them. I do mind them having equipment that does this automatically.

The storage and cross-referencing of this information is also inherent with data collected digitally.

[Molly]

The outcome of belief in the potential for total observation is self-regulation. It works in the same way as religious faith. It's Bentham's Panopticon manifested in zeros and ones. The technology is here and with it the capability. You either succumb and self-regulate or choose not to give a damn and hope you're not worth bothering with.

It's not that I'm taking a position one way or the other and I don't blame you for feeling the way you do but it's a fait accompli.

[Big Dave]

So the argument becomes biker v's motorcyclist.

Rebel with the wind in his hair and at least the illusion of freedom V's The Borg.

[AD345]

No disrespect but what would you expect the authorities to do with this kind of capability? They're not going to say: "Well, that'd be useful but let's not in case it upsets someone".

Surveillance has been with us since the first census (so, thousands of years). Bureaucracy is the first form of surveillance but it's important to note that the very same technologies which point out from governmental bodies can also point inwards and allow greater measurement and accountability.

Ultimately, anything that makes life harder for crims and those scumbags who don't want to pay their share is fine with me.

No disrespect taken, or intended by the following...

what would you expect the authorities to do with this kind of capability?

I would expect them to try to use it, for all sorts of reasons and get it accepted by whatever line of spin they think will go down most palatably.

Thats doesn't meant I want them to use it, cos I don't, nor does it mean that I wouldn't try to resist them being able to use it, cos I would (and have done in other areas relevant to NZ - with little success.)

Ultimately, anything that makes life harder for crims and those scumbags who don't want to pay their share is fine with me.

Sorry, don't buy, won't buy, never will buy the idea that your perceived security can be attained at the expense of my liberty.
You, of course, are quite free to feel the complete opposite.


I guess its just that I feel that I live in a pretty stable society with a large degree of personal safety and personal freedoms that I enjoy within a state apparatus that is quite big enough TYVM.

Mind you - I stopped watching TV news 18 years ago (yes really) and limit myself to no more than 15 minutes of newspaper browsing per day - non cumulative.

I miss the odd sports result but I love living where and when I do.

[Thaeos]

So the argument becomes biker v's motorcyclist.

Rebel with the wind in his hair and at least the illusion of freedom V's The Borg.

Hey the borg are pretty cool ...

[Molly]

Strangely enough, just today I had a conversation with someone about the idea of removing TV news from your life to see if it had a positive effect on your mental well-being.

I understand where you're coming from but think it fair to acknowledge that surveillance can have a positive effect on the quality of life of those with a greater sense of vulnerability. I once evaluated a northern English town's CCTV for the local council one year after its installation. Leaving aside issues of crime displacement (of time, space and type) and the questionable effectiveness of the technology as a crime-prevention tool, it was apparent that some members of the public (the majority in this case) actually appreciated the sense that they were being observed and felt safer as a result.

With the culture of managerialism that pervaded the public sector in the 1990s came a greater requirement for value for money and accountability. This endeavour is also monitored and measured by the same digital technologies that point outwards and, for example, check vehicle details.

It's not all good but, at the same time, it's not all bad.

[Big Dave]

Strangely enough, just today I had a conversation with someone about the idea of removing TV news from your life to see if it had a positive effect on your mental well-being.

I did this over 5 years ago - and current affairs. Thoroughly recommend.