Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[VIC] ANPR for Victoria

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by cejay, Sep 5, 2009.

  1. You lucky things.


    I see a few issues with this.

    There is an implicit assumption that people who have no rego and no licence are going to crash. Taking a 10% of all accidents being unlicenced/unregistered does not mean that all unlicenced/unregistered drivers will crash, just that of those that did, 10% of them met that criteria.

    If it's just a camera stuck on a bridge, that won't solve anything. Sending a copper round some days later or a fine in the post won't stop them. But if you don't do that, you need to have a visible presence on the roads operating the equipment with bikes and cars ready to arrest and detain.

    But if you do stop a driver who either without a licence or without registration, what do you do? You can fine them, add points to their non existent licence or lock them up. Do we really want to lock people up for this offence? That takes them out of the workforce, potentially having knock on effects for their family and ultimately the wider community.

    But the biggest concern I have is that the state will now have time and date information on the whereabouts of its citizens as they go about their lawful day to day activities. In the UK, most cop cars now have ANPR fitted and although the police only act on 'hits', we rely on the powers that be to tell us that that information is only transient and not kept.

    I guarantee that the first person to ask the question will be met by either a politician or police spokesperson telling us that if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear. That sort of misses the point about the state overtly tracking what we do, where go, how we go there and who we associate with. They will then tell us that it's to stop terrorists, criminals or other violent criminal activity and it's for our own protection. And bit by bit, we progressively lose all our rights to go about our business without being watched by the state.

    There was a golden age for privacy but this isn't it.
  2. So the cameras detect one if fifty cars committing offences. The obvious question is why so low?

    cejay said:
    Not sure that this is just an implicit assumption. I think that if the number of unlicenced, unregistered persons crashing is statistically significantly higher than the rest of the population, then it's a statistical red flag that there may be a causal link.

    As to what you do about them, well short of aversion therapy (fitting a device which delivers a shock to their genital each time they crash :LOL: ) I figure just keep on with the current regime of fines etc. It will dissuade some which is good. It won't dissuade the hard core minority of repeat offenders but then probably nothing will.

    That said, I don't see how the camera will help target/stop this specific group in anyway.
  3. Scanning number plates does not mean catching unlicensed drivers as they could borrow someone else's vehicle or someone else could be driving their vehicle, the only way to catch an unlicensed driver is to have the police physically pull them over and check their license. The automatic number plate scanning is just more revenue raising for the State government, people will learn where the auto cameras are and will avoid speeding when near them.
  4. And that's the point. The state will not achieve their aim, but will be able to collect data on how/what/what people are doing.

    Privacy and your right to it should be a given. Only in exceptional circumstances should the state have a need to enquire into your whereabouts. But now they won't need to ask, they'll have the information at their fingertips.
  5. these are vehicle mounted, they aren't on posts like speed camera's.

    All it will do is allow them to more effectively do what they already do. Next time your being followed by a police car, check them in the mirrors, odds are the passenger is checking your number plate. There are benefits and problems with any system, I am happy to live with this one. It could mean your stolen bike might be randomly picked up earlier by a passing police car, or then again it might mean you get picked up for being naughty.

    As for data retention problems, maybe they will be fitted with a cache that contiunously overwrites its self as time goes on, and only writes toa permanent log when a problem is detected.

    You'll be happy if your bike gets knicked and a car goes past it and it flags up instantly as stolen, instead of hoping the police officer thinks it's suss and checks up on it. I know of a situation where a resident called the police about a car that had been parked in her street for 4 weeks, and no one knew who it belonged to, it was stolen and the insurance had already been paid out. It was 4 blocks from where it was taken(Turned out it had no petrol when it was taken) undamaged.
  6. ANPR has lots of possibilities. Some good, some bad. This being promoted as a way to reduce the road toll, something it will probably not do.

    The problem with systems like this isn't when they are used as they were designed for, but when it becomes a defacto method of surveillance. With the march towards road pricing, GPS tracking devices and number plate recognition systems, the time when you could go about your business in private is rapidly diminishing.

    But you do have a point and I accept it. It's just that opportunity for misuse that I am wary of.
  7. oh don't get me wrong cejay, the potential for misuse is great, and maybe there is scope for the representative bodies to maybe ask for more information to clarify these issues.
  8. It's obvious a conspiracy up to the highest levels.
    Allow crime rates etc. to appear to be escalating, treat offenders with kid gloves etc. to further perpetuate the escalating street crime etc. ideology then by stealth allow all sorts of cameras to be put up everywhere in the name of safety before laws are changed in such a way as to subjugate the population for our own good.
    Orwell was a genius just 20 + years too early.
  9. They'll probably just change plates Thera.
  10. Here is an interesting article released by QUT on the topic. It seems to cover most points discussed including Ceejay and Smee's Data mining concerns (see Pg 8). It provides some interesting conclusions at the end. Enjoy.


  11. No way I'm gonna read all that!

    This is my point, it's all stealth, bombard us with jargon, misinformation and information overload.
  12. But it is quite concise and some of it supports your view. I don't know if it could be called misinformation. It doesn't go into the technical day to day running of how the system works or how it interrogates data in the database but it raises concerns about the use of the equipment and what value it could have or lack of value. Points found that in the UK it was not as successful as expected in identifying targeted illegal activity (unregistered unlicenced drivers) and not as successful in responding to 'flagged' vehicles (10%) as expected. I would assume the same limitations would apply here.

  13. Fair enough then but again then the problem is the opponents also bombard us with reams of information which makes me wonder if they are plants.
    Quality not quantity.
  14. And of course, the people they intend to catch will find another avenue and method to continue their criminal actions.
  15. Yep, that is a point that is covered in the document above. I found the article doing a search on Google by typing in ANPR technology. There is a lot of information at hand. This link probably supports yours and Smee's view quite clearly. I am not familiar with the author but he claims to have worked in IT consulting for a while. http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/ANPR-Surv.html

    Some interesting points. It looks more at the ethical and legal questions rather than just the technical points.
  16. Technically and at face value, it's an awesome tool. It allows police to effectively target road users who may have committed a crime, either with or without their car. And there is anecdotal evidence that someone who commits one crime is very likely to commit another. It's just that potential for misuse that concerns me.
  17. Fair concerns. As with any new technology, checks and balances need to be in place to protect the public.
  18. My concern is I have two friends who have lost their license. Now one his dad now drives his car all the time and the other guy I take his bike for rides every now and then to keep it running.

    Now we have the chance of being pulled over on the presumption that we have broken and are braking the law.

    Why is it most laws brought in nowadays making it easier to catch “bad†people more and more interfere with the “good†and the “bad�
  19. show your licence and bug off.
  20. I shouldn’t have to unless I have done something wrong.

    I grew up at a time if you rode a motorbike the cops pulled you over at minimum once a week, it would suck to get anywhere near that again.