Anpr

[StormWarrior]

Even written down information comes under the data protection act.

Nope, not always, only when contained in an organised (or disorganised) filing system. or in the DPA words

is recorded as part of a relevant filing system

DPA 1988 Section 1 ©

[danny_kiernan]

Well theres a little known fact about ANPR, the police cars only have licence plates for their area on the database. So say you were done for a driving offence in surrey, it would not filter back to scotland

[danny_kiernan]

I hate to disagree, but anything written down comes under data protection, no matter how disorganised

[StormWarrior]

All Police ANPR systems have what is effectively a 'black list'.

Index numbers that have been tagged for one reason or another.

The same as the original system that I previewed before its introduction in London.

Some vehicles are tagged as wanted for connection with crime, some as they should not be stopped when in motion, some that are subject to special provisions and exclusions.

On a local level, vehicles that are known to be unlicensed, registered to un-licenced drivers, etc wil be added to the lists.

[danny_kiernan]

police ANPR only downloads local plates - if it downloaded all 16 million, it would take hours - and this is one of thr most guarded secrets of the police Secret revealed - so now I can look forward to a nice police cell

[danny_kiernan]

n/a

[StormWarrior]

I hate to disagree, but anything written down comes under data protection, no matter how disorganised

This is the sort of comment that has attracted such negative attention on this forum. And I hope is a result of you being miss-informed rather than having a lack of knowledge.

Data Protection Act 1998

Read Section 1.

 

And to save you the trouble of looking Sec 68 does not include Police officers notebooks

[StormWarrior]

and this is one of thr most guarded secrets of the police

I wouldn't worry, it's not that secret Even my kids know it

I am probably dead meat for revealing that

and England hasn't got that bad. Yet !!

[StormWarrior]

police ANPR only downloads local plates

I once had chance to check my plate on police systems 200 miles apart and it showed on both. They also have access to the 'tagged' list.

[danny_kiernan]

What happens is - in the morning the police cars download 1500 local plates, then as they are cruising and a plate appears, they pull that person

[danny_kiernan]

and England hasn't got that bad. Yet !!

 

It should do as I am ready to go to WAR

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

I think a civil war is in order in britain, the government has tried to emasculate the nation, by banning arms.

[Rob S]

RobS, I'm afraid that Dani is right, there is a right to a phone call. This granted by Pace, Code of Practice C: Sectin 5.6 if I remember correctly.

 

And it's in addition to having someone informed of thier arrest or the obtaining of legal advice.

 

Stormwarrior, the right to a telephone call is not an automatic right and an officer of the rank of inspector or above can deny the telephone call in certain circumstances.

[Rob S]

Dani,

 

In post 22 you attributed some quotes to me when they were actually Stormwarriors. I would suggest you edit your post to reflect that.

[Rob S]

Rob S - are you trying to provoke me into an argument, it seems by your posts that you are.

 

 

Dani, if you think I have been offensive then you have led a very sheltered life. All I have done is to point out that some of the advice you have given in this thread is highly erroneous, nothing more or less. The fact that you continue to believe your advice, even when you have been pointed in the direction of reliable sources, is very worrying.

 

I have not been offensive, however you have towards me. All I can think is you are bored teenager, who has used a credit card to become a full member

 

You complain about me being offensive and then you post this!

[Rob S]

Thats personal opinion - you must have eagle-eyes

 

No, just normal eye sight

 

 

You are living on cloud 9 - the police require a reason to stop a vehicle - we aren't living in '1984', however it is getting like that.

 

Read the Road Traffic Act 1988 and you will see how wrong you are.

 

BS as the defendant was a woman, so references to 'He' are rubbish.

 

Read the quotes properly and you will see the links I provided refer to the case you posted.

 

You stated that a phonecall/ having someone informed was a courtesy. No it is a Human Right, not to be held incommunicado.

 

PACE does allow a person to be held incommunicado in certain circumstances, and it also allows an inspector or above to stop someone having a phone call in certain circumstances.

 

Yes every case I have intimate knowledge of.

 

How surprising:rolleyes:

 

ANPR is covert surveillance - how can you argue with that?

 

Given the size of the vans they use it is hardly covert:D And all ANPR does is to alert officers to a vehicle that has police reports attached to the vehicle record. Hardly surveillance is it. Would you say that officers sitting by the side of the road who doa PNC check and then stop a vehicle because of reports attached to it is surveillance?

 

Lets regard your inability to provide laws as BS then

 

I have provided the laws, just read the earlier posts. We are still waiting for you to provide the evidence that ANPR is,as you claimed, illegal.

 

Cool I have a kawasaki GPZ 1100

 

2 BMW's and a Triumph. The wife has a couple of bikes too:)

 

Thats a bit of a rubbish job then

 

I find it very rewarding and satisfying:D

[danny_kiernan]

Relevant documents available online:

 

Annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner to the Prime Minister and to Scottish Ministers for 2005-2006

 

Section 14 is the pertinent section, related to ANPR

 

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) - as a reference from the report above. Due to ANPR being Covert Surveillance.

 

BS 7958:1999 - Code of practice for the use of CCTV - the overview on that page is helpful, but to read the whole standard, you would have to buy it. For me to replicate it online would be a breach of copyright.

 

Data Protection Act 1998 - of particular interest is section 55.

 

Human Rights Act 1998 -as has previously been discussed.

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - self-explanatory really

[danny_kiernan]

No, just normal eye sight

Given the size of the vans they use it is hardly covert:grin: And all ANPR does is to alert officers to a vehicle that has police reports attached to the vehicle record. Hardly surveillance is it. Would you say that officers sitting by the side of the road who doa PNC check and then stop a vehicle because of reports attached to it is surveillance?

 

ANPR is not just in the mobile camera units (the marked vans), it is also in standard marked police cars and unmarked ones - now that is covert surveillance.

 

In the so-called rings of steel around some cities there are general warnings that there are cameras, but not where. The ones in privately owned car parks, have generic CCTV signage (when they are in fact using ANPR and passing your data around), which is misleading - so they are also covert.

Also the practice of putting CCTV warning signs on roads as a traffic calming measure, when there are no cameras makes the signage where there are cameras null and void.

[Rob S]

Relevant documents available online:

 

Annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner to the Prime Minister and to Scottish Ministers for 2005-2006

 

Section 14 is the pertinent section, related to ANPR

 

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) - as a reference from the report above. Due to ANPR being Covert Surveillance.

 

In the opinion of the office of surveillance commisioners of course. Others no doubt have alternative opinions.

 

BS 7958:1999 - Code of practice for the use of CCTV - the overview on that page is helpful, but to read the whole standard, you would have to buy it. For me to replicate it online would be a breach of copyright.

 

 

I fail to see where CCTV comes in to this, but you are obviously trying to introduce as many red herrings as possible, given that much of the "advice" you have given is well wide of the mark.

 

Data Protection Act 1998 - of particular interest is section 55.

 

You obviously didn't take in this part of section 55:-

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows-

 

• (a) that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring-

• • (i) was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or

• • (ii) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court,

Dani, you obviously can not accept that much of the advice you have given is incorrect, flawed and dangerous. All you are doing by continuing to push your "advice" is digging yourself a bigger hole. If I was one of your clients I would have grave concerns about your competancy to do whatever it is that you do (which you are so coy about). But if you want to carry on, be my guest. I'll sit back and enjoy the spectacle:D

[danny_kiernan]

Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey - Independent Online Edition > Transport - interesting article

btw ANPR uses CCTV or still images to do the recognition, so CCTV does come into this

[Rob S]

I am still waiting for you to address points I raised earlier in this thread, but since you have resorted to using classic avoidance techniques I know I have no hope of you answering. Time to unsubscribe from this thread methinks, though I will pop back in from time to time to see if you are still digging:D

[danny_kiernan]

Which points? I have addressed pretty much all of your points as far as I can see - so what avoidance am I doing?

[danny_kiernan]

Just so you don't think I am avoiding a point

 

You obviously didn't take in this part of section 55:-

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows-

 

• (a) that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring-

• • (i) was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or

• (ii) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court,

 

I am fully aware of that part, the section pertains to 1 individuals data if it was necessary for preventing or detecting crime. It does not mean obtaining 10,000 innocent peoples personal data just to get one criminal.

10,000 is just a number I pulled out of the air, it is not a statistic as I do not know the exact ratio.

 

If you actually think that way, do you have a problem with the government having immediate access to everyones bank records (rather than by a court order), just to see if someone has been receiving too much money and is therefore guilty of a crime?

 

Dani, you obviously can not accept that much of the advice you have given is incorrect, flawed and dangerous. All you are doing by continuing to push your "advice" is digging yourself a bigger hole. If I was one of your clients I would have grave concerns about your competancy to do whatever it is that you do (which you are so coy about). But if you want to carry on, be my guest. I'll sit back and enjoy the spectacle:D

 

This is a statement made by you, not particularly a question or point raised, so how can I answer it?

[danny_kiernan]

Rob is right about the Brown Judgement in privy court - it is very hard to get hold of any paperwork relating to scottish cases, but I found a link

 

My solicitor has also advised me that the information I have given is in essence correct, however certain parts of it could be rephrased. Which I will be doing shortly.

 

BTW I am not a solicitor or involved in the legal profession in any direct way, except by taking to court(and being taken to court) and representing myself, except when I get forced to have legal representation by the court (in contravention of human rights).

[Rob S]

That's funny Dani, I could swear the link you have posted is identical to the 3rd link I put in post no.11 of this thread:D

 

If your solicitor has advised you that your advice "in essence" is correct, does that mean your solicitor believes that the police have to have probable cause to be able to stop a motor vehicle?