The Guardian: Surveillance on drivers may be increased
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.”
My god why is it necessary to mention terrorists or terrorism every time there is mention of new applications of surveillance technologies. Mr Gifford seems to mention it as an aside but the implication is that perhaps 7/7 could have been prevented if the system was in operation at the time. It’s like he feels the need to justify the use of surveillance by using our greatest fears. But why should that surprise me it is what has become almost a standard line by government spokesmen so why not independent advisors also.
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”.
Interesting that the public don’t actually get to say whether they wish to give up some liberty in order for the greater good of society.
In any case as Marcel Berlins writes it’s not a civil liberties issue.
Currently being floated in parliament is a proposal for more road surveillance cameras, partly to catch out motorists who use mobile phones while driving. I have seen several accidents caused by chatting drivers; someone I knew quite well was killed because she was talking and driving at the same time. I would have expected the proposal, aimed at deterring dangerous conduct and thereby reducing accidents and saving lives, to be greeted with enthusiasm. But no.
The whingers have emerged. It would cost too much; the technology isn’t good enough; it won’t prevent accidents; it’s a cynical scheme to make money by fining the poor put-upon British motorist; Britain has become the most watched country in the world. To the last of those ill-founded objections I say, “So what?” I don’t care how many cameras we have on the roads, provided they are used for the public good, which, to my mind, includes catching dangerous drivers and lowering fatalities. This is not a civil liberties issue.
If this technology leads to prosecutions of people like Donna Marie Maddock who was caught on camera driving whilst using both hands to apply makeup then it surely is a good thing.
But I think Mr. Berlins is mistaken in believing that the issue of whether the technology will work is irrelevant.
It’s pointless to expand the system to catch people talking on mobile phones or applying makeup if the technology isn’t good enough to distinguish between those behaviours and innocent actions such as scratching one’s ear or sneezing or something equally innocuous. I don’t know what the true case is but you wouldn’t use speed cameras if the technology was unable to tell if a car was travelling at a legal speed of 56 MPH and an illegal 72 MPH so it clearly is an issue that needs to be at least considered before implementation.
Also it would seem to me that if every single motor vehicle is scanned by the ANPR then there may be a civil liberties issue here as well depending on what is done with the data. I wrote briefly last year in a much longer post about the use of ANPR in Bath following this article in The Bath Chronicle: Cameras scan for criminals.
It’s fine if my number plate is scanned, checked against the database of offenders and then discarded but if my travel into Bath is logged then eventually the police will have built up a log of my movements into and out of the city along with every other drivers’.
Tags: liberty, surveillance, terrorism
