Anpr

[Conniff]

You don't read past what is in front of your eyes. If they refuse to hand over the key, they will be arrested and that will allow the investigating officers to seize the equipment anyway, and if there is criminal activity on that equipment they will be charged with that also, so they wont be just getting 5 years.

[Rob S]

I think you misunderstand, I have no problem with the police working within the law, I want them to catch criminals.

 

.

 

But you want them to do it with one hand tied behind their back. You don't want them using ANPR, that much you have made obvious and you don't like them using new technology. You want them to have to run off to a court to get authorisation every time they want to carry out surveillance.

 

You bleat on about "human rights" but how conveniently you forget about the human rights of the victims of crime and their families and friends and how it impacts on them. Their rights are far greater than the rights of the crinminals who commit crimes, but it seems you and countless others in the legal profession are happy to ride roughshod over that to protect the "human rights" of the criminal.

 

The balance swung too far the other way before the Human Rights Act became law, and now it is even more unbalanced. The Human Rights act is being abused for the protection of the criminal by people (edit).

[danny_kiernan]

You don't read past what is in front of your eyes. If they refuse to hand over the key, they will be arrested and that will allow the investigating officers to seize the equipment anyway, and if there is criminal activity on that equipment they will be charged with that also, so they wont be just getting 5 years.

 

That really depends on the encryption - and any other form of ciphers used - there are ciphers around, that still haven't been decrypted after 100's of years. So If it can be decrypted - then they will get charged with the offence, otherwise they just get the RIPA charge. I do say up to 5 years, as a lot of people on 5 year sentences can get out much earlier.

 

I can read past whats in front of my eyes

 

Also section 52 of RIPA, opens up a new avenue of abuse, being paid to provide a key.

[danny_kiernan]

But you want them to do it with one hand tied behind their back. You don't want them using ANPR, that much you have made obvious and you don't like them using new technology. You want them to have to run off to a court to get authorisation every time they want to carry out surveillance.

 

You bleat on about "human rights" but how conveniently you forget about the human rights of the victims of crime and their families and friends and how it impacts on them. Their rights are far greater than the rights of the crinminals who commit crimes, but it seems you and countless others in the legal profession are happy to ride roughshod over that to protect the "human rights" of the criminal.

 

The balance swung too far the other way before the Human Rights Act became law, and now it is even more unbalanced. The Human Rights act is being abused for the protection of the criminal by people (edit).

 

As I stated before - the usage of authorisation techniques has worked in other countries for years, and the authorisation can be attained quite quickly, if the relevant grounds are given.

 

I have no problem with the police, after stopping a suspect car (via visual determination or an alert on the PNC), then requesting authorisation for details on that vehicle, but I do have a problem with covert blanket surveillance, which infringes on privacy and data protection rights.

 

You are welcome to your opinions, as am I - but please do not accuse me of abusing Human Rights, for the protection of criminals - unless you have sufficient evidence.

 

Plus, no person has more rights than any other. Rights can be revoked - such as Right to Freedom, upon being found guilty of a crime.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

[Conniff]

That really depends on the encryption - and any other form of ciphers used

 

No it doesn't. To have the key would aid in the speed of decryption, but it is not necessary to have the key to break encrypted data.

 

================

 

I have no problem with the police, after stopping a suspect car

 

What would make that car a suspect? It is just another blue Fiesta being driven perfectly up the lefthand lane of the M6.

[Rob S]

Danni,

 

You happily accuse me of being pro-state, claiming to have read everything I have posted on CAG (which I very much doubt) and then warning other members about me, but you don't seem to like it when accusations are thrown your way. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

 

You stated time and time again your views on how the police should be able to do their job (or not as you would prefer it). You have also posted details of cases where criminals have gone to the EctHR to get redress, aided and abetted by lawyers on spurious issues. That suggests to me that you condone this abuse of the Human Rights Act by criminals and their legal representatives. I stand by my opinions on that.

[danny_kiernan]

No it doesn't. To have the key would aid in the speed of decryption, but it is not necessary to have the key to break encrypted data.

 

No it is not necessary to have the key, but it cuts down the time it would take.

Take for example 128 bit RC5 with a 2040 bit key, that would take 1000's of years to go through every combination (with todays technology, undoubtably it will be faster with newer technology in the future)- by the time that it had been cracked - the criminal would be dust. Add to that an obscure Cipher on the message itself, before encryption then it would take even longer.

 

What would make that car a suspect? It is just another blue Fiesta being driven perfectly up the lefthand lane of the M6.

 

Have you not heard of motorway snooker

[danny_kiernan]

Danni,

 

You happily accuse me of being pro-state, claiming to have read everything I have posted on CAG (which I very much doubt) and then warning other members about me, but you don't seem to like it when accusations are thrown your way. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

 

Well a lot of your views appear to be pro-state, I did say some things in haste, which have been edited - but I still have the opinion that you are pro-state, I am not however anti-state, just anti orwellian type state.

 

You stated time and time again your views on how the police should be able to do their job (or not as you would prefer it). You have also posted details of cases where criminals have gone to the EctHR to get redress, aided and abetted by lawyers on spurious issues. That suggests to me that you condone this abuse of the Human Rights Act by criminals and their legal representatives. I stand by my opinions on that.

 

You asked for cases, so I supplied them - regardless of the crime commited and I am sure you must know that innocent people, due to circumstances end up convicted of a crime. So I do not presume to judge the previous judgements of any of the cases I stated - as I do not know the innocence or guilt of the person in question, nor am I party to the evidence that did not breach human rights.

[Conniff]

that would take 1000's of years to go through every combination (with todays technology....

 

No it wouldn't because you would not use just one computer to check all combinations.

 

Have you not heard of motorway snooker

 

No I have not heard of that, what is it?

[patdavies]

ANPR at customs points would be null and void a lot of the time, because of vehicles having foreign plates.

 

ANPR works across all Schengen area plates

[patdavies]

I have never heard of it being called motorway snooker before, but police patrols do unofficially play 'snooker'

 

ie. Stop a red car and issue an ticket for something; then a yellow car; then another red; then a green and so on up to a black car.

 

Thus making white and silver 'safe' colours. Moral - don't buy a red car:D:o

 

And before Dani moans, whilst it may be reprehensible, it is entirely legal as the RTA gives the Police authority to stop any car at any time on the pubic highway

[Rob S]

Well a lot of your views appear to be pro-state, I did say some things in haste, which have been edited - but I still have the opinion that you are pro-state, I am not however anti-state, just anti orwellian type state.

 

 

You haven't edited your post where you claimed to have read all of my 966 (at the time) posts and found that 77.56% of them were pro state. Are you going to edit that one to show the truth?

 

PS One thing I will say is that I am patriotic. Your stance towards me suggests that you may not be so Danni. Are you one of those that despises your country and all it stands for?

[danny_kiernan]

Who's moaning, I have always thought of motorway snooker as a silly, innoffensive game

 

When did we join the Schengen Countries?

Last I heard, The UK couldn't join due to the unique status between Ireland and the UK.

 

The only part that the UK has been allowed to adopt, is police co-operation (which includes the schengen information system), but the UK are not allowed access via Article 96 & 99, which relate to the movement of people/vehicles throughout Europe.

 

The UK can request information held under Article 96 and/or Article 99 - but it is not instantly available.

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

You haven't edited your post where you claimed to have read all of my 966 (at the time) posts and found that 77.56% of them were pro state. Are you going to edit that one to show the truth?

 

Yes sorry about that, it was 77.536231884057971014492753623188%

 

I should have been more specific, so I do apologise

 

Dani

[Rob S]

Yes sorry about that, it was 77.536231884057971014492753623188%

 

I should have been more specific, so I do apologise

 

Dani

 

So you are quite happy to carry on telling (edit) then?

[danny_kiernan]

PS One thing I will say is that I am patriotic. Your stance towards me suggests that you may not be so Danni. Are you one of those that despises your country and all it stands for?

 

I wouldn't describe myself as patriotic, I was once - but I have been disillussioned by the constant erosion of freedoms and liberties in this country - by the government.

 

I feel that we are goosestepping towards a police/nazi state, which in my humble opinion is a bad way to go.

[danny_kiernan]

So you are quite happy to carry on telling lies then?

 

I'm not lying at all.

The overall tone of your posts seems quite like the letters in certain newspapers.

 

If you want to look at all your posts simply use site crawling software, like I do (which is quite legal as the posts are in the public domain).

[Rob S]

I'm not lying at all.

The overall tone of your posts seems quite like the letters in certain newspapers.

 

 

I say that you are. I don't believe for one second that you read every single post I have placed on CAG. If you had you would know that your figure of 77% is inaccurate.

[danny_kiernan]

I say that you are. I don't believe for one second that you read every single post I have place on CAG. If you had you would know that your figure of 77% is inaccurate.

 

Well it IS inaccurate now as you have made more posts since then, so I don't dispute that the figure is inaccurate now.

[Rob S]

Well it IS inaccurate now as you have made more posts since then

 

And it was inaccurate when you made the original post.

[danny_kiernan]

And it was inaccurate when you made the original post.

 

Nope - but you do have to bear in mind that the figure was based on my interpretation of your posting tone, another persons opinion would differ of course (some wildly different opinions, some similar). As after all, we are individuals not just bundled together.

 

Even if I were to go through all your posts today, the figure would be different - as perceptions/preconceptions alter over the course of time.

[Rob S]

Nope - but you do have to bear in mind that the figure was based on my interpretation of your posting tone, .

 

And if your intepretation is as accurate as your claims about ANPR and the advise you gave at the start of the thread, then it is wildly inaccurate:D

[livelylad]

Notice

 

Personal comments removed again dispite warning in post 86. Thread closed.