This is frightening. While we're dealing with reports of NSA spying on Americans without warrants (while simultaneously claiming that Congress authorized such spying and that they didn't go to Congress for authorization because they wouldn't give it) and the Pentagon spying on peaceful organizations whose politics they don't like, get a load of what's happening across the pond. England is now going to track the movement of every single car and build a database of where each and every vehicle, and thus the vehicle's driver, has been at all times:
Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.
Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.
Before long, it won't even be necessary to use cameras. Many vehicles are now produced with chips that can be tracked, to be used with automatic pay toll booths and the like. With such technology, tracking where someone is at all times is trivially simple. That sound you hear is Orwell spinning in his grave.
- Log in to post comments
The problem here is that there are so many parts of government pushing for something like this. Obviously the police want it, mainly because car theft has terrible enforcement rates, but it might also spare them some heat in the high-profile missing white girl cases, several of which have produced terrible PR for the cops recently. Equally obviously MI5 and Special Branch want it because, well, they're spies. Less obviously, however, the treasury, the department of transport and local government bodies are pushing for this (or something like it) as a result of the success of London's congestion charge. Road pricing is the big idea (just about the only idea) that Labour has for controlling congestion, since it refuses to invest any more in the sorts of things that get middle class people out of their cars (ie trams and light rail). And the treasury is even more powerful than the home office in British politics.
Incidentally, it's possible this may fall foul of the Human Rights Act, which sort of guaranteess a right to privacy. Unfortunately the limited British jurisprudence in the privacy area (post-HRA) has been very inconsistent, and furthermore there is an absurdly broad caveat in the right, allowing infringement of privacy when it "is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
I think this kind of power is great because of all the good that can come from its use. The problem, however, is that this sort of technology can be used for evil purposes as well as good. People who have an interest in using this power for good must be ever-vigilant against those who would use it for bad. This doesn't mean that we should cross our fingers and hope real hard that people don't misuse this power, it means that we ought to establish transparent, democratic checks on that power wherever it will be used. Tracking cars is a joke compared to what's possible. If we don't get a handle on using this power justly, then a lot of people are going to suffer.
averagecow wrote:
And what do you propose when it is the very same people, or at least the same institution, that wants to use it for both purposes?
That is a little like the people who think it's ok that the American government is spying on us because they trust this government not to abuse that power. Those who are so willing to give up their liberties don't bloody well deserve them. And they piss on all the men and women who have given their lives or bodies for those freedoms.
I have had to go the rounds with my sons mom who wants to put an RFID chip in him in case he were abducted. I have mixed feelings myself, after all he's my son. But where do we end, how much are we willing to give in teh name of security?
In the US we are on the brink of losing our tenuous grasp on democracy all together. We have allowed our government to errode liberty to the point that the president takes on totalitarian authorities and is defended by some Americans for it. If we do not redress this situation what we have lost we will not regain. No fairy is going to wave a majic wand and poof, democracy is restored - if we let it be taken we don't even deserve it.
I so want to raise my son in even a democracy as tenuous as ours - not the fourth riech. . .
A friend recently returned his rental car at the NYC airport, after visiting Princeton for a conference. He received a statement that included a "surcharge assessment" against his purchased insurance which stated that he violated the terms of the rental policy when he drove in excess of the speed limits in posted zones on the highway. It seems the vehicles, indeed most rental cars now, have RFID's linked to GPS transponders that record and report vehicle use. The lesson for us has been that when renting cars now, always know that you are being observed and recorded, and that you will be charged an additional fee (fine??) for abusing the rental agreement. Somewhere in this seems to be something that interferes with my constitutional rights to due process and 8th unlawful forfeiture of property???
Sorry, but as a private entity, the rental company can pretty much do as it wants - no constitutional problem here.
Now, if it was not spelled out somewhere in the 89 page agreement you signed without reading, you *might* be able to get them for adding something to a contract, but not likely.
After all, they have a vested interest in making sure their property comes back in one piece.
Sorry, but the rental company is well within its rights to do this - no constitutional issue here.
After all, the rental agency has every right to protect its property.
It was probably even spelled out in the 89 page document your friend signed but did not bother to read or question.
This is part of the UK's implementation of the EU data retention directive, which also requires telecoms to preserve of records of telephone calls made, and ISPs to preserve records of emails sent and web sites visited. I believe the email log retention period is 6 months and web site log retention period is 4 days.
This has been studied in the US, too, in Oregon. The rationale is that fuel-efficient cars are not paying their fair share of road taxes (never mind that fuel-efficient cars are generally lighter and abuse the road surface far less. By that measure, trucks pay far too little) It is coming unless people understand it and put a stop to it.
England is now going to track the movement of every single car and build a database of where each and every vehicle, and thus the vehicle's driver, has been at all times:
Two points. One, the amount of data that is accumulated will quicky overcome their ability to process it (for whatever purpose they might want to process it).
Two ...and thus the vehicle's drivers...? Unless British car owners are very odd, many of their vehicles are likely driven by multiple drivers. The upshot is--they can track the vehicle, but they won't know who is driving the vehicle.
Many vehicles are now produced with chips that can be tracked, to be used with automatic pay toll booths and the like. With such technology, tracking where someone is at all times is trivially simple.
Not exactly. With such technology, tracking where a vehicle is at all times is trivially simple, and it has been for several years. There's a GM system that allows for vehicle tracking (I forget its name). It relies on GPS and allows a GM service provider to locate a vehicle in the event of a break-down. I might make a catty remark about what that says about GM's vehicles' reliability but I'll refrain ;-)
On the general level, the turnpike automatic toll pay booths have no idea as to who is in the car. One of the issues regarding them, though, was what other issues the information from the transponders (which is what they are) might be used for. Consider the following. I get on the Massachusetts turnpike at entrypoint A. I get off at exit B. The transponder registers my entry at A, and my exit at B, and charges my account accordingly. The turnpike authority has said that they would not record other information, but there is nothing that might prevent them from also recording the times of entry and exit. To cut it short, they very well could calculate distance (A to B) versus time and determine whether the driver--actually, the vehicle--was speeding, and generate a speeding ticket. As far as I know, it hasn't happened--yet--but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
decrepitoldfool at December 26, 2005 02:11 PM
The rationale is that fuel-efficient cars are not paying their fair share of road taxes (never mind that fuel-efficient cars are generally lighter and abuse the road surface far less. By that measure, trucks pay far too little) It is coming unless people understand it and put a stop to it.
This is very true regarding heavy-duty trucks. They damage the roadways far more than passenger cars, SUVs and pick-up trucks and vans. And they are not paying their full freight.
In Germany, they have just recently started charging tolls on the Autobahnen for heavy duty trucks (LastKraftWagen--LKWs)) using the transponder system because the LKWs were wrecking the Autobahnen.