3/28/2025 at 12:57:45 PM
I think the crazy thing about ANPR/ALPR is just quite how simple it is to create a massive panopticon. The UK has a fairly established national ANPR system, and it generates on the order of 90M records per day [1]. All of this data is available to various law enforcement agencies. If you drive, you're probably being recorded in a way accessible to the PNC every day.Because of how effective this is for catching even fairly minor violations like failure to pay vehicle tax, number plate cloning is becoming pretty common (comparatively) in the UK. This means that you can easily get swept up in a police dragnet because someone has stolen your car's identity.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-anpr-ser...
by noodlesUK
3/28/2025 at 2:03:17 PM
Since I doubt I'm the only one who didn't know what a "panopticon" is:A "panopticon" is a concept originally designed as a type of prison by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. It’s a circular building with a central watchtower where a single guard can observe all the inmates in their cells, which are arranged around the perimeter. The twist? The inmates can’t see into the tower, so they never know if they’re being watched. This setup was meant to induce self-discipline—prisoners would behave as if they’re always under surveillance, even if no one’s actually looking.
by BurningFrog
3/28/2025 at 3:42:16 PM
That summary is technically correct but is missing some context. A famous French philosopher and historian named Michel Foucault popularized Bentham's panopticon as a metaphor for modern society more broadly back in the 60s. IIRC the gist is that the way modern society always watches and monitors us across many aspects of modern life probably has deep but subtle affects on our psyches. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punishby kaycebasques
3/28/2025 at 7:47:43 PM
> probably has deep but subtle affects on our psychesMany religions (basically all the big ones) forcefully indoctrinate members from childhood to believe that their deity is omniscient and is constantly watching them and judging them. It's generally agreed among members that this is a good thing.
by mullingitover
3/28/2025 at 11:03:05 PM
I was raised catholic and I now consider it a form of abuse. Someone close to me was raised evangelic and thinking about this makes her want to puke.The psychological damage from this sort of thing is probably so prevalent that it looks like water to a fish. Not to speak of the sleepless nights at 7 years old worrying about eternal damnation.
This is all abuse and it should be treated as such by any decent and civilised society.
by telmo
3/29/2025 at 1:28:31 AM
I was not raised Christian growing up, but I still recall believing someone was always watching me as a kid. It was likely because so many around me were religious, and I had been told so many dead relatives were "up there smiling down on us" when they died. I thought both that someone was looking through my windows and that people "up there" could see me.Until I got access to pornography (too early) and then I guess the tradeoffs changed, and I eventually got over it. I do distinctly remember wondering what grandma thinks of me at that time. But not for long, logic kicks in to explain anything away when you've got fast internet to exploit.
by ehnto
3/29/2025 at 1:07:30 PM
> But not for long, logic kicks in to explain anything away when you've got fast internet to exploit.Not everyone is so lucky; for some, the feelings of guilt and shame never get dissolved through logic, it's just the dopamine loop is strong enough that the person keeps doing things they later despise themselves for.
Guess how that can impact the psyche over a decade or two.
by TeMPOraL
3/29/2025 at 1:11:49 PM
Maybe not psychologically healthy for the individual, but likely provides some social benefits.Anyway, it doesn't appear to work as well lately so we maybe should come up with another approach for social stability.
by mythrwy
3/29/2025 at 9:58:49 PM
> Maybe not psychologically healthy for the individual, but likely provides some social benefits.I never understood this line of reasoning. What good are "social benefits" if the happiness and well being of the human beings that make up that society are sacrificed? Isn't this the basis of totalitarianism? "Everything for the State, nothing against the State".
by telmo
3/30/2025 at 4:03:30 PM
Well ya I don't say I condone, I'm very much an individualist (to a fault).But also, we don't exist in isolation, and there are reasons societies evolve as they do. There has to be some level of social control and belief in being watched over at all times was probably pretty handy for emperors and to some extent those who would be victimized. At least back when it worked wide scale.
by mythrwy
3/30/2025 at 7:49:47 PM
Why do we need this myth of things working in the past? It didn't work and was a horror show. This is bordering on the absurd "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" logic that doesn't ever really work outside the heros journey and action movies.by asacrowflies
3/31/2025 at 1:58:46 AM
There are reasons things evolved as they did. Societies with forms of social cohesion beat those without. Maybe it's different now but then again, maybe it's not.by mythrwy
3/31/2025 at 6:42:50 PM
I guess I wonder which groups modern groups in your eyes have net social cohesion. Seems highly subjectiveby asacrowflies
3/29/2025 at 12:19:33 AM
As a christian, I can handle this concept. But only in the context where the deity accepts that I can never be perfect and yet can be acceptable. This concept, though biblical, is hardly ever taught because of the fear of it being taken advantage of. The deity requires effort, not perfection. If this is false, then the messiah was a complete waste of time.by bloomingeek
3/29/2025 at 2:30:34 AM
> But only in the context where the deity accepts that I can never be perfect and yet can be acceptable.This is the religion where everyone, over 6000 years later, is being vindictively punished because a couple of their ancestors, in a single instance, broke a rule about eating from one of the trees. The deity, who is omnipotent and could decide stop this all at any time, allows for all manner of terrible diseases and pestilence to be visited on innocent children.
by mullingitover
3/29/2025 at 3:08:31 AM
A few thoughts. One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view. Second, a vast majority of human suffering is down stream of human decisions. Yes it is possible for an omnipotent being to stop all suffering but I would argue it would remove all moral decision making from humans which is important.by Veelox
3/29/2025 at 4:54:59 AM
> not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal viewI grew up in a Christian country and your "some" is doing a lot of work. Sure, perhaps some specific Christian theologists take that view. But, all actual Christians are taught from childhood that it was one specific man, tempted by one specific woman into eating a literal fruit. The only thing that's generally mentioned as open to interpretation is whether the fruit was an apple. You might get exposed to more nuanced theological views if you study at a seminary, but not while living your life as an average person who identifies as Christian, which is the vast majority.
by esperent
3/29/2025 at 1:31:19 PM
The majority of Christians (Catholics) are told to not read the bible literally. Taking the bible literally is where logic and critical thinking breakdown.by ipaddr
3/29/2025 at 6:36:14 PM
I thought the apple thing was understood to be a Latin pun between “malum” (evil) and “mālum” (apple). Isn’t it so?by elros
3/29/2025 at 11:53:38 PM
Ah yes, hence "maleficarum" being an alternate name for AppleTalk. :D(Source: I made this up.)
by taneq
3/29/2025 at 10:18:52 AM
> One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view.I was raised Catholic (mass every weekend, CCD through 8th grade) and not once were we ever taught your interpretation. It was Adam and Eve, one man, one woman.
by kelnos
3/29/2025 at 11:06:19 AM
It’s not a part of Catholic doctrine. You won’t find the core beliefs of much, much more mainstream sects in Catholic teachings, let alone the more uncommon beliefs that are out there.by mathgeek
3/29/2025 at 5:14:41 AM
> One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view.That is such a tiny minority I’ve never even heard of that until now
by thowawatp302
3/29/2025 at 1:20:42 PM
It’s a lot larger than you think.by genghisjahn
3/29/2025 at 7:34:36 AM
> Second, a vast majority of human suffering is down stream of human decisions.This implies there is a small minority, i.e. human suffering not down stream of human decisions - what about that?
I actually don’t want to argue, I can understand that for some people disregarding that part or finding an explanation is enough and still helpful.
My point is to highlight that, similarly, for others, this idea and its interpretations are unhelpful.
by thih9
3/29/2025 at 10:54:16 AM
Bro. This might be technically correct but you are far from the first person who posited these questions and won’t be the last to be swamped with responses trying to “save” you. Let the morons be morons and just stop poking the hornets nest.by smackeyacky
3/29/2025 at 8:00:36 AM
That’s exactly what made me renounce christianity. In kindergarten.by spiderfarmer
3/28/2025 at 8:40:11 PM
Sounds like we've met. I'd take God in this position over one man or many any day of the week"Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man. For thou art the God of my strength..."
"...but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."
by uticus
3/28/2025 at 10:52:23 PM
Agreed. I’ll take a fictional overseer vs an actual one any day of the week.by Henchman21
3/28/2025 at 7:57:45 PM
I'd be significantly less worried about being in a panopticon if it was going to accurately judge my good and bad deeds and do nothing else.by Dylan16807
3/28/2025 at 8:47:10 PM
Though that depends quite a lot on who gets to define what is "good" and "bad".by 3D30497420
3/28/2025 at 10:33:10 PM
Seems wise to leave the answering of that question to a transcendent entityby theoreticalmal
3/28/2025 at 11:39:37 PM
Maybe not the one that thought that wiping out almost all life on Earth in response to some unspecified immoral behavior by human inhabitants is good?by int_19h
3/29/2025 at 12:19:04 AM
[flagged]by all2
3/29/2025 at 10:20:50 AM
That argument doesn't make it any better. That just makes God a eugenicist.by kelnos
3/30/2025 at 7:54:30 PM
[flagged]by asacrowflies
3/29/2025 at 12:16:13 AM
If the results of that determination only apply after I'm dead, then their definition of good is not entirely relevant to me.by nilamo
3/29/2025 at 1:43:30 AM
> It's generally agreed among members that this is a good thing.Some say it is just the way the rich keep the poor from killing them.
by amelius
3/28/2025 at 7:44:51 PM
Like thinking the “elf on the shelf” Christmas toy is an acceptable thing.by woleium
3/28/2025 at 8:50:25 PM
"Hey, what if we marketed a little narc doll that we sold to kids" was probably when I should have realized that the surveillance state will always winby moate
3/28/2025 at 7:28:17 PM
The inability of people to go through the power process has deep psychological implications, described in depth in "Industrial Society and It's Future"by greenavocado
3/28/2025 at 8:42:44 PM
[flagged]by Der_Einzige
3/28/2025 at 7:26:32 PM
Is it ironic or fitting that a man who designed a building where everyone could be observed is now observed himself for eternity. His preserved corpse is on display at University College London.by forgotusername6
3/28/2025 at 2:12:17 PM
Am curious. How, with 17th century technology, could you have a geometry where I can see you but you can't see me? Glass treatment? Narrow viewing port?by intrasight
3/28/2025 at 2:24:04 PM
Don't need any special tech or geometry, just light. If it's relatively darker in the watched-from areas it's harder to see in than out.by sprobertson
3/28/2025 at 10:14:07 PM
Light and perhaps curtains in the central area would probably do the trick.by thecosas
3/28/2025 at 2:28:42 PM
"By Blinds, and other contrivances, the Inspectors concealed from the observation of the Prisoners: hence the sentiment of a sort of invisible omnipresence."— Jeremy Bentham (1791). Panopticon, or The Inspection House
by scoot
3/28/2025 at 3:05:42 PM
Something like "one way mirrors" should work.They're really just glass with a partially reflective layer.
When one side is brightly lit and the other side isn't you get the desired effect.
by BurningFrog
3/28/2025 at 7:23:25 PM
If the internet is to be believed they did not have one way mirrors in the 17th century. They were invented in the early 1900s.However, looking at the patent for what is supposed to be the first it says that there were earlier attempts--they just sucked because making the partially reflective layer was difficult and expensive and not durable enough when used on outdoor advertising devices.
Yes, you read that right. Advertising. Technology being driven by someone's desire to show ads is not new.
The thing the inventor was building was a case for displaying advertising posters. The case had a glass front, and the poster was behind the glass, with powerful lights behind the poster. When the lights were off the glass would appear to people looking at the case to be a mirror. When the lights were on the poster could be seen.
by tzs
3/29/2025 at 4:10:49 AM
Plain glass works fine for this, but they were perfectly capable of making one way mirrors at the time. The historical term is "half silvered mirror", which were used in a lot of early scientific research in optics.Frankly you could just use blinds though.
by AlotOfReading
3/29/2025 at 5:45:22 AM
If the internet is to be believed silvered mirrors also came after the 17th century. Wikipedia has silvered mirrors as being from 1835.by tzs
3/29/2025 at 1:49:50 PM
Silvering is a separate and older process than silver mirrors, as in the metal silver applied to a glass surface.The Wikipedia page on silvering points to the 1400s in Europe, and the 10th century for the eastern Mediterranean : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvering
by AlotOfReading
3/28/2025 at 2:14:45 PM
a circular room looking out from a high point facing an exterior round wall of cells that look inby thatcat
3/28/2025 at 2:33:50 PM
Something like a pinhole camera. If you have a piece of card with a pinprick hole in it, you can look through that hole and see a wide view, but a person in front of you wouldn't be able to see much of you through that same hole.by ndsipa_pomu
3/28/2025 at 3:35:41 PM
Prisons in the 1800s were darkby tomcam
3/28/2025 at 6:19:46 PM
It's a metaphor mostly.by kayo_20211030
3/28/2025 at 3:23:47 PM
[flagged]by RKFADU_UOFCCLEL
3/28/2025 at 7:19:12 PM
How awfully unfortunate to spend your entire life in a panopticon without ever being told what one is. Perhaps this is a feature.by singleshot_
3/28/2025 at 6:01:06 PM
It is all about informational asymmetry, you know nothing about the people in power, while they (potentially) could know all about you. The idea is to get you to self-police by assuming the gaze of those wielding the power.by atoav
3/28/2025 at 9:26:16 PM
You just described my Catholic upbringingby klondike_klive
3/29/2025 at 2:40:10 AM
the scarier thing is, prior to the AIs, even if they could get all this information, there was no one to sort through it, so they needed some actual reason to look.Now they don't need any reason to look, they can just make a bunch of AI sift through it.
by cyanydeez
3/28/2025 at 2:15:16 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticonby frereubu
3/28/2025 at 2:24:03 PM
Root word comes from the Greek mythological giant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_Panoptesby linuxlizard
3/28/2025 at 3:16:13 PM
Whose name itself comes from the ancient Greek words pan (all) and optikon (optics, see).by thrance
3/29/2025 at 5:32:28 AM
In the Netherlands 3 panopticon-style prisons were built from 1882 to 1886. This is the one that stands in Breda:by rapnie
3/29/2025 at 7:03:27 AM
Some years ago, the one in Arnhem, was up for sale, and the local hacker space, hack42, made an attempt to buy it and turn it into the largest hacker space of Europe. The plan did not work out.by fjfaase
3/29/2025 at 5:27:33 AM
Automated review of camera data differs from the classic panopticon, though, in that it's possible for the system to observe every person, every time.by xhevahir
3/29/2025 at 4:25:34 AM
Also a kickass album by Isis (a bit unfortunately named now...).by cozzyd
3/29/2025 at 10:37:12 AM
Not to be confused with ISIS, lmao.Here is the album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF6Qzd9BLSQ
by johnisgood
3/28/2025 at 2:55:08 PM
[flagged]by kylebenzle
3/28/2025 at 2:58:06 PM
[flagged]by wrboyce
3/28/2025 at 5:43:46 PM
That's one GPT-ass paragraphby moffkalast
3/28/2025 at 5:52:16 PM
Maybe, but if so, it was an appropriate use.by RandomBacon
3/28/2025 at 1:38:23 PM
We have national companies like https://drndata.com/ that aggregate LPRs from every possible source and sell it to... a lot of uses.Motorola/Vigilant cameras feed into DRN especially.
by kotaKat
3/28/2025 at 2:47:32 PM
The repo man is truly a changed character.by banku_brougham
3/28/2025 at 2:53:50 PM
Or the ever classic ‘caught in an affair’ [https://petapixel.com/2021/12/13/speed-camera-photo-sent-to-...]And attempts to reduce the problem [https://au.news.yahoo.com/woman-believes-husband-cheating-sp...]
by lazide
3/28/2025 at 7:55:41 PM
GPS trackers and immobilizers (aka "kill switches") have also made repo work a lot easier. If you buy from low/no-credit ("buy here pay here") lots, you probably have at least one (if not both) installed.by tart-lemonade
3/29/2025 at 1:20:47 AM
This has happened to me twice in Australia, and plagued a friend so much they sold their car. They couldn't afford the replate fee (and figured it would just happen again) so they gave up, I gave them a spare bicycle, which was then stolen.I can see how people lose their faith in policing competence, it was at least always resolved fairly but the stress of being accused of all that stuff, not knowing if you'll be put in jail or acquitted etc. You still bare the costs of replating a car as well.
by ehnto
3/28/2025 at 1:12:11 PM
Number plate cloning should be pretty easy to spot with a network of cameras. Same plate in two spots or seen in a distance impossible to travel in the time.And then police can be alerted every time they see a plate flagged as being cloned and either find a criminal, or be able to alert the person their plate is cloned.
by Gigachad
3/28/2025 at 1:34:27 PM
In theory, yes, but that's not how policing works.From personal knowledge of the UK setup, the goals are twofold, mass surveillance plus auto-revenue-generation (intended to raise sufficient to pay for the surveillance infrastructure to minimize the net cost which means auto issuing the absolute maximum number of tickets possible).
Doing validation to ensure correctness of the tickets being issued would be counter-productive to the revenue generation goal; just because police have evidence a crime (like cloning) has happened, does not mean they will not issue the ticket. There is an onus in the UK for the registered keeper of the vehicle to incriminate themselves or someone else for road traffic offences (confirmed by test cases).
Essentially you have to pay up or prove the cloning (and your innocence) yourself - very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you. The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.
by discretion22
3/28/2025 at 3:01:38 PM
>There is an onus in the UK for the registered keeper of the vehicle to incriminate themselves or someone else for road traffic offences (confirmed by test cases).That's not how that works. You, as the registered keeper of a vehicle, have a number of duties relating to the provision of information to the police or other relevant authorities upon request. This isn't a controversial provision, something similar exists in practically every jurisdiction in which cars have a unique identifier.
The s172 process avoids the situation where a speeding fine can be avoided by simply not saying who was driving. 172(4) provides a statutory defence which can be advanced by an individual who's vehicle was cloned:
>A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
And regarding the disclosure issue
> The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.
This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.
However, if you are being prosecuted for failing to nominate, it is more likely that you have completely failed to return the form rather than returning the form with a note saying that your plate appears to have been cloned, in which case access to the ANPR database is irrelevant because you need to explain why you did not bother to furnish the information rather than police not believing that your vehicle had been cloned.
by multjoy
3/28/2025 at 5:25:17 PM
> This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence."Obliged"?
I immediately thought the case of the Guildford Four, and the scene in the biographical film In The Name Of The Father.
IIRC in the film the note in police files said "not to be shown to the defence"... :/
by logifail
3/28/2025 at 6:43:23 PM
Disclosure is a very different beast today, fifty years later.by multjoy
3/29/2025 at 3:23:13 PM
What laws have changed?by voxic11
3/28/2025 at 2:04:44 PM
>Essentially you have to pay up or prove the cloning (and your innocence) yourself - very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you. The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.At least in the US prosecutors are obligated to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find, even if they don't plan to use it in court.
by gruez
3/28/2025 at 2:54:07 PM
I'm sure a traffic camera number plate reader system can be programmed such that evidence of cloned tags was intentionally not captured or saved.by ryandrake
3/28/2025 at 3:03:27 PM
Why? What would be the point of that?by multjoy
3/28/2025 at 3:30:24 PM
The thread started out with:> Because of how effective this is for catching even fairly minor violations like failure to pay vehicle tax, number plate cloning is becoming pretty common (comparatively) in the UK.
Evidence of number plate cloning would reduce revenue from fines. If the government wants to fine you for not paying your vehicle tax, evidence that someone cloned your plate would be exculpatory, so it's in the government's best interest to not collect that evidence in the first place.
by ryandrake
3/28/2025 at 3:39:14 PM
That's literally not how government works. If they explicitly discarded data because it was exculpatory then not only would they not be able to fine you based on that data, they would have to refund every fine they issued while that discard rule was in place.by multjoy
3/29/2025 at 9:58:33 AM
The police literally withhold exculpatory evidence all the time, as a matter of business as usual.by immibis
3/29/2025 at 11:34:21 AM
I don't, so my sample set is distinctly broader than yours.by multjoy
3/30/2025 at 5:20:37 PM
What?by immibis
3/28/2025 at 3:36:16 PM
It could happen entirely accidentally."Oh, we hit for DEADBEEF at 11:00am in London, so ignore hits for DEADBEEF from anywhere else outside some Nx safety factor of the driving distance from that hit, because it has to be a false positive."
or
"Oh, we hit for DEADBEEF at 11:00am in London and again at 11:05am in London. Our cloud costs are high, so we're only going to store the most recent picture DEADBEEF, and only record the violation from 11:00am and 11:05am."
I guess these examples sound kind of contrived to me, but how long do you retain this kinda data for? 30 days? 60 days? A year?
by kaibee
3/28/2025 at 3:41:49 PM
Entirely contrived. The point of the system is that you want all the hits everywhere, if your system is using any discard rules at all then it is unreliable for a prosecution.by multjoy
3/28/2025 at 8:31:32 PM
You're not thinking like a bureaucracy.Suppose you have a system of cameras operated by the various localities. The localities are all storing the data. Then there is a central system that can query all the local systems but doesn't itself store any of the data.
The department issuing traffic citations requests an automated daily report showing every vehicle observed at multiple locations where the two sightings imply an average speed between 55MPH and 170MPH. Then the citations department takes the report and issues a citation to anyone where there is no route between those two points that allows the calculated average speed without exceeding the speed limit.
The report isn't automatically generated if the average speed was calculated to be 490MPH because cars don't go that fast so issuing a citation would trivially allow it to be challenged as a data irregularity, and the report is requested by the department issuing speeding citations rather than the one (if any) investigating data irregularities.
Now you get a ticket for doing an average speed of 87MPH along a route where the speed limit never exceeded 55MPH. You claim it's a data irregularity (cloned plate), but that's a possible speed, because the automated report didn't include the impossible speeds.
There may have also been sightings that would have implied an average speed of 490MPH, but that report was never requested so it doesn't exist. The bureaucracy comes up with some excuse for why you can't run your own reports that don't already exist. You could request the raw data and then do the calculations yourself, but then you have to make a thousand requests to each individual locality, which is purposely too much trouble for most people to bother, and even then there is no guarantee that the person who cloned your plate was spotted in a location that would have produced an impossibly high speed.
by AnthonyMouse
3/29/2025 at 11:36:43 AM
><The department issuing traffic citations requests an automated daily report showing every vehicle observed at multiple locations where the two sightings imply an average speed between 55MPH and 170MPH. Then the citations department takes the report and issues a citation to anyone where there is no route between those two points that allows the calculated average speed without exceeding the speed limit.The problem with that is that isn't how average speed cameras work, and where speeds are ludicrously high then there is a human operator looking at it.
by multjoy
3/29/2025 at 10:21:14 AM
So why isn’t the system already working as Gigachad suggested up the thread? Why is cloning plates feasible at all and not immediately discovered and prosecuted? Is this perhaps in the works? Or are the incentives not there?by StackRanker3000
3/29/2025 at 11:43:21 AM
Because ANPR data isn't routinely monitored. If your car is up to date on tax and insurance it doesn't generate an alert, the presence is recorded and ignored.People make journeys that are illogical all the time and ANPR misreads are common, so there is no justification for having a system that says "this plate has pinged simultaneously 200 miles apart", because what are you going to with that information?
When you trigger a speed camera, the police send a notice to the registered keeper. They don't search ANPR for other hits, because why would they? They're dealing with the single traffic offence in front of them.
ANPR is an intelligence tool. It is an extremely valuable one, but it isn't definitive and no prosecution would stand alone on ANPR data without other corroborative evidence.
by multjoy
3/28/2025 at 2:53:48 PM
> At least in the US prosecutors are obligated to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find, even if they don't plan to use it in court.Once you're at that level of issue, you're already wasting massive amounts of time and money.
by fkyoureadthedoc
3/28/2025 at 2:54:33 PM
It’s very common that they don’t - and how would you know/prove it existed when it’s hard to even know who to ask?by lazide
3/28/2025 at 3:41:13 PM
The "revenue generation" argument works for the US but cannot be imported directly over, because cameras work differently here. The revenue goes into the consolidated fund. Rule changes removed them from revenue-maxing spots and made them bright yellow with advanced signage.(also, the court case if you take it to court should include the photo showing the car, so cloners have to match the exact model of car from the plates they're cloning)
by pjc50
3/28/2025 at 3:07:08 PM
The decision to site a speed camera (and costs of maintaining the camera) and revenue from the camera end up at very different points in the system. The fixed cameras in my city have been off since 2012, because the local council won't pay for them. The "revenue generation" argument is very much overblown.by flir
3/28/2025 at 1:55:51 PM
> very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help youIs the legal process of discovery not a thing in the UK? Finding evidence that might exonerate you is precisely what that process is for.
by Ajedi32
3/28/2025 at 2:52:34 PM
Disclosure in the UK (as it’s called) is a bit different from discovery in the states, but serves largely the same function.I googled a bit to find a decent guide and found one on the HSE’s website: https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/aft...
Unfortunately in real life disclosure is one of the many places that the criminal justice system tends to fail to meet its stated ideals. Disclosure is often served late or improperly on run-of-the-mill cases from what I’ve heard and read. There’s a great book called the Secret Barrister that goes into some detail about the UK’s (or England and Wales more specifically) criminal justice system from quite a critical lens.
by noodlesUK
3/28/2025 at 3:02:35 PM
A better guide is the Crown Prosecution Service's disclosure manual:by multjoy
3/28/2025 at 2:50:20 PM
Respectfully, this is naive and doesn't consider defacto judicial process. Basically, defendants are getting railroaded unless they have resources to mount a defense, and charges are inflated to incentivize plea bargaining.by banku_brougham
3/28/2025 at 3:57:34 PM
I'm not sure how a system would work that didn't auto issue the absolute maximum number of tickets possible. Random lottery to auto discard tickets? A max quota leading to a lawless time in the late evening?But if that has parameters they've set to max because they really want that delicious revenue, why not detect cloned plates and charge those people more than the tickets?
by hennell
3/28/2025 at 8:37:14 PM
> But if that has parameters they've set to max because they really want that delicious revenue, why not detect cloned plates and charge those people more than the tickets?The plate is registered to the victim whose plate was cloned. The identity of the perpetrator who cloned the plate isn't known, so how do you issue them a citation?
by AnthonyMouse
3/28/2025 at 1:52:10 PM
and when this happens, it is proof of an illegitimate regime, not for the people, and as such it becomes morally and ethically justifiable to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING one deem required to demolish it, and bring the responsible parties to justiceby redeeman
3/28/2025 at 3:37:17 PM
We're talking about speed cameras here, not deporting people to illegal prisons in El Salvador.Or even more basic civil liberties stuff like the use of face recognition against protestors. No, there's always a huge number of people that come out for the right to drive illegally fast instead.
by pjc50
3/28/2025 at 1:16:53 PM
They'd presumably target cars that don't drive much. (btw anyone can check any car's annual mileage from the number plate using the MOT history lookup)by HPsquared
3/28/2025 at 2:07:12 PM
>btw anyone can check any car's annual mileage from the number plate using the MOT history lookupCan this be done anonymously? Otherwise doing such a lookup creates a paper trail, which is generally bad if you're trying to commit any crime.
by gruez
3/28/2025 at 4:59:25 PM
Yes, you just type the registration number into this form: https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/Not sure whether it's accessible outside the UK.
by cjs_ac
3/29/2025 at 10:19:25 AM
I bought windscreen wipers for my car recently, the previous owner was my mother and the man in the shop said 'oh, 2018 was the last time they were replaced'. So, more information seems to be available to those who know..(and, it was me who replaced the wiper blades then so I know it was right)
by clort
3/28/2025 at 2:20:03 PM
What paper trail? All they can log is the IP address that made the query, and that's not enough to do anything with.by gambiting
3/28/2025 at 2:35:48 PM
That's why GP asked if the lookup was anonymous.by normie3000
3/28/2025 at 2:41:02 PM
it's as anonymous as searching any other information on government websites - you don't need to log in to do it.by gambiting
3/28/2025 at 2:43:16 PM
Depends on the jurisdiction, though. Federal court records are theoretically "on a government website", but you need a PACER account, which has your billing information.by gruez
3/28/2025 at 11:52:58 PM
Well, OP mentioned UK plate cloning so I was talking about how it works in the UK.by gambiting
3/28/2025 at 1:34:50 PM
Cloning or just plate theft only works if you put the plate on the identical make, model and colour of vehicle, as many ALPRs are also quantifying the traits of the vehicle and a non-match raises a flag and will likely get extra scrutiny.by llm_nerd
3/28/2025 at 1:41:15 PM
This does not sound like an egregious limiting factor at all.by dylan604
3/28/2025 at 1:54:01 PM
I didn't claim it was. But there is a big difference between "steal some plates from extended airport parking" and having to find and steal a plate specifically for the target vehicle. Obviously you could use the most common car and colour and make your task easier, but like for my SUV I see a similar colour / year / model on the roads maybe once a month. If I had to find another to steal or clone a plate it would legitimately be a pain.by llm_nerd
3/28/2025 at 2:12:29 PM
this is one of those areas where the fraud becomes much easier with scale. if you are trying to steel 1 plate for 1 car, this is a problem, but if you're trying to steal plates for 1000 cars, 1200 plates will match 800 carsby adgjlsfhk1
3/28/2025 at 8:46:45 PM
Is it actually that much of a problem if you're trying to clone/steal one plate for one car? Go to some major stores with huge parking lots during busy times. Find one car which is the same model and color.Maybe it's hard if you have a classic car with an unusual paint job. Not so hard if you have a white Toyota.
by AnthonyMouse
3/28/2025 at 8:11:48 PM
What kind of operation is stealing plates in bulk like that? My guess is none.by chuckadams
3/28/2025 at 8:24:30 PM
It doesn't need to be in bulk though. If you're not a dumb criminal looking to do this, you put in the work by just driving around a city center looking for a make/model/color you are interested.Or, if you want to be organized, you run around with plate readers and log make/model/color/number and then sell that data.
by dylan604
3/28/2025 at 9:23:01 PM
You could just go on your car sales website of choice and likely find the same car with the plates visible.by Lanolderen
3/28/2025 at 1:16:35 PM
My brother had his plates nicked a few years back. Apparently they had lightly modified his plate so that it appeared differently ( can’t recall if it was marker or tape )by shortercode
3/28/2025 at 1:56:30 PM
I'm not sure that panopticon is the right word for this. Bentham's panopticon extended into the prisoners' cells, and with the intent that they would never know if they were being surveilled or not.ANPR in the UK doesn't have these characteristics. Firstly, it happens in public places only, and historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK. Secondly, there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; the cameras and computers "watch" every car equally.
Overall, I can't say I love the number of ANPR cameras we have, but then I'm also not thrilled by the thought of subsidising large numbers of people who aren't willing to hold up their side of the social contract by taxing and insuring their cars.
by gnfargbl
3/28/2025 at 2:10:30 PM
> historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK.True, but we also had zero expectation of permanent records being kept of so much of what we do in public spaces, or being under such constant surveillance in public spaces. I think that is a concern.
> Overall, I can't say I love the number of ANPR cameras we have, but then I'm also not thrilled by the thought of subsidising large numbers of people who aren't willing to hold up their side of the social contract by taxing and insuring their cars.
ANPR does not seem to have put a stop to it. I really cannot understand why. If someone has not made a Statutory Off Road Notification they must pay tax and be insured, and if they are caught on an ANPR camera having made a SORN they are clearly breaking the law
With such widespread use of ANPR I cannot understand how people are still able to get away with it.
by graemep
3/28/2025 at 9:30:48 PM
> > historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK.> True, but we also had zero expectation of permanent records being kept of so much of what we do in public spaces, or being under such constant surveillance in public spaces. I think that is a concern.
I've been watching a bunch of "auditor" videos from the UK. These guys are basically trolling by going around with a camera in public, filming stuff, and fishing for reactions that they can then post on Youtube or TikTok or Reels or whatever for views and engagement.
One thing that's very consistent across these videos is how many of their victims truly believe that you need permission to film people in public, or that they can walk up to the guy with the camera and demand to know who he is or that he deletes the footage. So a lot of people are acting as if they had much stronger rights to privacy than they really do, people think they're generally safe from being constantly surveilled, when the opposite is in fact true.
Another thing that's also hilariously consistent is when these auditors film businesses, and representatives of those businesses, usually the store manager, goes out and tells them they can't film the customers going in and out of the store because that's "against company policy" or "because of respect for our customers' privacy". At the same time, those stores have tons of security camera inside the store, recording every little thing every single customer is doing all the time.
The hypocrisy is blatant. Everybody wants to monitor everyone else, but no-one wants to be monitored by anyone.
by henrikschroder
3/28/2025 at 2:25:26 PM
"expectation of privacy" is one of those slippery terms where lawyers use it differently from the public, and this isn't immediately obvious.Historically, we have expected that people can see us in public. However we have not had the expectation that:
- that we are identifiable to people other than acquaintances
- that we can be tracked by people not present, either at the time or later - and for someone to physically follow you to track your movements would fairly quickly lead to alarm and summoning the police to remove them.
So no, other than lawyer's argot, we have always had a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. Not absolute privacy, but privacy in the areas that matter to most of us.
by tengwar2
3/28/2025 at 2:36:30 PM
There's a similar issue around phone metadata. If someone knows that you've made a particular call at a certain time, you wouldn't be concerned about them spying on you, but if they had access to all your phone call records, then they can put together a picture about you and your acquaintances.by ndsipa_pomu
3/28/2025 at 4:46:08 PM
Yep. Quantity is a quality all its own. Being stalked by a million virtual cops at all times doesn't feel like freedom to meby 01HNNWZ0MV43FF
3/28/2025 at 2:07:26 PM
> and with the intent that they would never know if they were being surveilled or not. [...] there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; the cameras and computers "watch" every car equally.I disagree. Nobody expects all camera footage to be reviewed by a person, so you never know if what the camera caught will ever be seen (or used against you). In that sense, it's just like the panopticon. You feel watched so you behave, but whether you are watched or not in that moment is unknown.
by tredre3
3/28/2025 at 3:13:21 PM
That's part of my point, though: these cameras are basically never reviewed by a person. So you are reliably watched constantly, but never by a human.This does lead to the problem that the post I replied to was pointing out, namely that people often get automated fines for cloned plates. It's kind of like the opening of Brazil, if you're familiar with that film, but obviously for much lower stakes.
by gnfargbl
3/28/2025 at 4:12:53 PM
But we don’t know the capabilities of the machine systems watching the cameras, although we should assume they are getting more capable.So the results are unpredictable, just as they would be if humans randomly checked the cameras recordings.
by curiousObject
3/28/2025 at 4:45:37 PM
> Secondly, there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance;People carry a cellphone with them, these by-and-large have multiple high resolution cameras along with microphones. Some even have LIDAR. Plus they are constantly emitting pulses that can be captured from several kilometers.
A person could be selectively surveilled without their knowing by monitoring their phone.
This is ignoring the massive network of internet connected private security cameras and police drones, which are very adept at monitoring people, as well as theoretical technology that we don't know is in use (i.e., using high frequency radio waves to "see" through walls).
by mywittyname
3/28/2025 at 2:18:47 PM
Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you and enforced by the government. Isn't it bad enough that your taxes, which are a real social contract, go to pay government workers to ensure that you're purchasing the required private, for profit, service? Now we're building surveillance infrastructure for them.by thatcat
3/28/2025 at 3:07:22 PM
The point of mandatory third party insurance is so that when you drive through the putative crowd of children waiting for the bus, the state and the victim's families are not on the hook for lifetime care costs which can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars per victim.by multjoy
3/28/2025 at 4:51:46 PM
Idk seems like a get out of jail free card when you should probably be in debt for life, slaving away for your grave negligence, not let off the hook because you paid 100$ a month.by thatcat
3/28/2025 at 6:07:00 PM
Let off the hook? That's what criminal penalties are for.Without mandatory insurance those victims wouldn't get anything.
by dns_snek
3/29/2025 at 12:41:35 AM
There can be other systems than private subsidized insurance for that, criminal penalties are rare. It would need to be like a dui for that to work.by thatcat
3/28/2025 at 6:44:27 PM
That’s no good to the victim, is it.by multjoy
3/29/2025 at 12:16:36 AM
You can't really retroactively fix things with money, the idea that it "compensates" in some equal way is simply wrong. Money helps with the medical bills, disability, etc. It's better than nothing, but even if you pursue civil or criminal litigation it's not going make any one else take paying attention to controlling their heavy machinery more seriously. The perception of consequences diminishes, even though there are real consequences they seem like tail end risks since causing an accident doesn't typically result in jail time or civil litigation. I guess my hypothesis, based on a single observation is that people take extra risk because they have insurance and so feel like if they get in a wreck - it won't be that bad and they might get a new car.by thatcat
3/28/2025 at 2:46:19 PM
The social contract is really to fix the damage your (at fault) collisions cause.At least in jurisdictions I've been in, the state requires evidence of financial responsibility as a requirement for driving. (Enforcement is a separate issue from requirement). A car insurance policy is evidence of financial responsibility, and the most common; but you can also post a bond of something like the minimum insurance amounts. Yes, if you don't have the money to post a bond, you're more or less forced into insurance or not driving (or driving illegaly), but that's we know you'll uphold the social construct of fixing the damages you cause. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle, because it's not as easy to cause damages with a bicycle.
by toast0
3/28/2025 at 3:04:02 PM
Self insurance is no longer a thing in the UK. I think the administrative work of ensuring you capture increased bonds with inflation was judged unacceptable or something?So actual insurance is mandatory for people who operate motor vehicles on public roads
by tialaramex
3/28/2025 at 3:01:12 PM
The alternative is that cars are prohibited because we've decided not to insure the risk and their owners definitely can't be relied upon to just happen to be able to cover the costs when, inevitably, they are incurred.I'm OK with "all private motor vehicles are prohibited" but you need to be clear if that's what you want
by tialaramex
3/28/2025 at 4:57:05 PM
Socializing the risk in this way is a regressive tax, there are clearly other alternative organizational structures.by thatcat
3/28/2025 at 4:41:50 PM
To play devil's advocate (and avoid the wrath of a certain lobby): We don't require knife insurance.by rconti
3/28/2025 at 9:55:04 PM
To extend your analogy slightly (while recognizing the actual meaning), if you go to an axe throwing venue (range) you dont have to carry insurance, but the range does carry insurance.If you go into the wilderness where axe throwing is allowed, and you maim or kill someone, you are personally liable to be sued or prosecuted.
If you throw an axe where it is not allowed, you are also personally liable criminally and civilly.
by gnarlynarwhal42
3/28/2025 at 8:15:20 PM
Do you use your knives daily in a fashion that might injure bystanders? If so maybe you should be made to carry mandatory insurance.by chuckadams
3/28/2025 at 8:45:52 PM
There has been discussion about piloting something like that in londonby kyleee
3/28/2025 at 2:34:51 PM
> Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon youso if you had an accident that caused damage to somebody else, and you didnt have money to pay for said damage, who makes the other party whole?
by chii
3/28/2025 at 3:17:23 PM
You can survive quite happily without a car, and thus without car insurance, in the vast majority of the UK. Vehicle ownership is not mandatory either in principle or practice.by gnfargbl
3/28/2025 at 2:38:16 PM
FWIW, there is such a thing as public-sector insurance. The required auto insurance in saskatchewan, for instance, is tied to your registration and administered by the same crown corporation, which doesn't have the profit motive that a private insurer has.by cwillu
3/28/2025 at 3:12:55 PM
"Obey the law" isn't part of the social contract? Hmm.by flir
3/28/2025 at 4:58:51 PM
Law 209348032984: Pay some guy for dubiously priced services that are clearly a government function. If you don't do it you're a statistical thief who refused to pay for something that didn't happen. Seems like the law itself is violating the social contract.by thatcat
3/28/2025 at 8:11:15 PM
I don't think "buy some car insurance if you're going to drive" is any more unreasonable than "buy a crash helmet if you're going to drive".But I can see how there would be a range of valid opinions on the matter. Some places do have a single government-owned insurance company: whatever they say you have to pay, you have to pay. No other options.
by flir
3/28/2025 at 2:08:50 PM
I'm pretty confident you also have roughly zero expectation of privacy in prison.Edit: I don't know why this one of all things is getting downvoted, but at least in the U.S., this is legitimately true.
> In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), the Supreme Court held that people in prison don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells.
by jchw
3/28/2025 at 2:40:56 PM
Because it's not particularly relevant. The term comes from the prison system, where there is no expectation of privacy, and is being applied to describe a public setting where there maybe _should_ be some expectation, because we're not prisoners!by cwillu
3/28/2025 at 2:44:05 PM
...But, the post I am replying to is literally suggesting that the reason why this system isn't a panopticon is because there isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Yet, the term comes from another place where there also isn't an expectation of privacy. I honestly suspect people are getting a little confused.by jchw
3/28/2025 at 3:26:09 PM
I was drawing a contrast between the prisoner in the panopticon (does not have privacy) and the citizen in their home (has privacy). Because of that contrast, I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces.by gnfargbl
3/28/2025 at 4:20:07 PM
Going back up a few levels,> I think the crazy thing about ANPR/ALPR is just quite how simple it is to create a massive panopticon. The UK has a fairly established national ANPR system, and it generates on the order of 90M records per day [1]. All of this data is available to various law enforcement agencies. If you drive, you're probably being recorded in a way accessible to the PNC every day.
So we're talking about tracking plate numbers, in public. No expectations of privacy.
Now regarding what the panopticon was,
> The panopticon is a prison design by Jeremy Bentham, characterized by a central observation tower allowing a guard to see all inmates without the inmates knowing if they are being watched, fostering a sense of constant surveillance and self-discipline.
So we're talking about monitoring prisoners, in prison cells. No expectations of privacy.
---
> I was drawing a contrast between the prisoner in the panopticon (does not have privacy) and the citizen in their home (has privacy).
Now we're talking about citizens in their homes. When did that enter the discussion?
> I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces.
OK... Why?
by jchw
3/28/2025 at 5:07:30 PM
> So we're talking about tracking plate numbers, in public. No expectations of privacy.Correct.
> So we're talking about monitoring prisoners, in prison cells. No expectations of privacy.
Correct.
> > I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces.
> OK... Why?
Because prisons have no real equivalents for the private and public spaces we experience as free citizens. Drawing an equality between people who are voluntarily in a public space and people who are incarcerated is wrong, because the people in public can choose to withdraw somewhere private. The prisoner (in the panopticon model at least) has no such option.
If the state had an interconnected surveillance system which saw both into our public and private spaces, the analogy might make more sense -- and usually when "panopticon" is used, it is used in that sense. But it's the wrong term to use for surveillance which occurs only in public.
I'm not trying to be an overly pedantic dick here, but words do need to have clear meanings. There are other terms we could use for ubiquitous surveillance that occurs in public, and perhaps we should standardise on one.
by gnfargbl
3/28/2025 at 5:41:19 PM
> Because prisons have no real equivalents for the private and public spaces we experience as free citizens. Drawing an equality between people who are voluntarily in a public space and people who are incarcerated is wrong, because the people in public can choose to withdraw somewhere private. The prisoner (in the panopticon model at least) has no such option.To me this feels like an entirely different argument than the "expectation of privacy" one, and I still do not really find it persuasive. Please note that the panopticon concept was also planned to be used in schools, hospitals, and other locations.
> If the state had an interconnected surveillance system which saw both into our public and private spaces, the analogy might make more sense -- and usually when "panopticon" is used, it is used in that sense. But it's the wrong term to use for surveillance which occurs only in public.
I disagree that the term "panopticon" should not be applied to public mass surveillance systems. There are some contrasts between the two concepts, but I think it paints a pretty good picture of the psychological impact that such systems can have.
> I'm not trying to be an overly pedantic dick here, but words do need to have clear meanings. There are other terms we could use for ubiquitous surveillance that occurs in public, and perhaps we should standardise on one.
I don't really take issue with being pedantic, I'm being pedantic too. But still, metaphors are metaphors, not direct equivocations. There are indeed limitations to how much the term "panopticon" can possibly be applied to some other surveillance system. If you go further, you can also point out more literal aspects of the panopticon. However, I don't think it is an unreasonable stretch to use the term "panopticon" for other sorts of mass surveillance systems. EFF has used the term "panopticon" a fair bit to describe digital surveillance and data collection systems, even though those are also a fair bit different than the original concept of a panopticon.
To me, the important thing about an metaphor is that it conveys the right thing to people, not whether it is literally a 1:1 match. When people say that mass surveillance systems are a "panopticon", they definitely are pointing to the things that made the panopticon so unnerving:
- The uncertainty of whether or not your actions are being scrutinized, forcing you into a permanent state of paranoia and self-regulation.
- The way that it enables totalitarian control over large groups of people.
- The general loss of privacy (regardless of whether you had any expectation of it to begin with.)
To me, basically any mass surveillance system is like this, except probably worse. Mass data collection means that not only do you not have any idea if anyone's scrutinizing your actions, but you also don't know if it might be scrutinized any time in the future.
As far as standardization goes, there are write-ups on the use of the term panopticon as a metaphor. I'll just defer to Wikipedia[1] and its respective sources here. I think the fact that it is commonly used as a metaphor should cover the "standardization" aspect; some day, the actual original panopticon will probably be eclipsed by the systems that are described in relation to it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Surveillance_techno...
by jchw
3/28/2025 at 6:06:23 PM
> To me this feels like an entirely different argument than the "expectation of privacy" one, and I still do not really find it persuasive.If nothing else, we've at least understood where we disagree! I don't think it's reasonable to consider a lack of privacy in one space without also considering the possibility of refuge in another space.
That's not to say that loss of privacy in the public space is automatically acceptable, but it feels qualitatively different to loss of privacy in the defended space. Ubiquitous ANPR doesn't invoke feelings of paranoia in me, at all. Cameras and microphones in my house (if monitored by the state) certainly would.
Ubiquitous ANPR in public does encourage self-regulation, in that other people feel more required to follow public-good laws like maintaining motor insurance with it in place. As mentioned above, I'm not convinced that's a net negative.
> Please note that the panopticon concept was also planned to be used in schools, hospitals, and other locations.
I didn't know this, but after doing a little more research then yes, I concede that you're quite correct. The term was used contemporaneously in settings other than prisons, and in fact the original use of the term probably owed more to other settings [1].
[1] https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1353164/2/014%20Steadm...
by gnfargbl
3/28/2025 at 8:17:36 PM
It was kind of Foucault’s entire point that society is running on norms that describe a prison.by chuckadams
3/28/2025 at 4:46:18 PM
I've been watching a British spy show called Slow Horses. So far a huge chunk of season 2 is spies looking at camera surveillance footage. It sounds like it's really that bad.by troyvit
3/28/2025 at 8:48:02 PM
To highlight how bad it is, I read this article as a Brit and was genuinely confused. I kept wondering what I was missing because it seemed so obvious to me that if you drove around your neighbourhood the police would be taking photos of your movements regularly on any major road.But I guess this isn't a thing in some places?
While I'm not fond of the cameras monitoring my movements honestly the worst part of driving in the UK is the constant anxiety that if you do anything wrong you're going to be fined. And sometimes you arguably don't even do anything wrong they just change the rules without telling you.
The updated the road near me recently from 30 to 20, they did this on the patch of road by an existing speed camera and only put one small sign up. Because most people know the road is 30 thousands and thousands of people have been fined for not realising someone updated the speed limit overnight.
Similarly, in my city they're constantly making roads one way, restricting car access on certain roads, adding restrictions for diesel cars, and adding bus lanes. All have cameras so if you don't realise you're immediately fined.
I even know someone who was recently fine because they were caught on camera going through a red light to get out of the way of an ambulance (they insist they did so safely).
The tracking our movements is really the least of our problems.
by kypro
3/28/2025 at 11:16:42 PM
In all fairness the highway code specifically says that you should not violate it to let ambulance pass. Might be down to sketchy council, but they normally place signs "new layout ahead" and the like when limits, lanes change.by aliher1911
3/28/2025 at 11:43:05 PM
Violating other road rules to let an emergency vehicle through is particularly allowed under the road rules where I am (Queensland Australia)by mjmas
3/28/2025 at 11:46:48 PM
In US, it's not uncommon for small towns to have traffic fines be a significant part of their budget, which in turn incentivizes them to deliberately confuse motorists to fine them - this is especially true for towns located on busy routes where there's a lot of out-of-town traffic, since locals generally learn the where the traps are.by int_19h
3/29/2025 at 6:26:11 AM
Another good one is the British 2019 series called "The Capture".by dr_kiszonka
3/28/2025 at 1:01:18 PM
And chances are a large proportion of them have got Google/Apple recording the locations of their devices too. We do it to ourselves these days.by 4ndrewl
3/28/2025 at 1:05:06 PM
I would say there’s a pretty significant difference between something like phone geolocation data, which is not very practical to search, especially for Apple devices, and in any case usually requires at least a superficial level of scrutiny, and a database that any old police officer can just run a query on as and when they feel like it.by noodlesUK
3/28/2025 at 1:20:10 PM
They don't need access to your device. The Police can use records from the mobile operators to track device movements.by tonyedgecombe
3/28/2025 at 1:44:06 PM
Yes, they can, however I don't believe this is quite as straightforward as just looking up the data for a particular vehicle on your police computer. Looking up the ANPR data on a vehicle is only marginally more complex than looking up a person's driving license details or similar. My understanding is that in order to do a reverse geofence request, or look up a specific device, it's a lot more complicated, and these days you're only going to get cell site information rather than precise GPS data (as was possible by asking Google in the past).by noodlesUK
3/28/2025 at 3:29:37 PM
Well... not entirely true.Cell Providers will sell data to anyone, then companies like Tectonix GEO[1] will slap a pretty UI on top of that data.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cq2zuE3ISYU...
by mmh0000
3/28/2025 at 6:15:00 PM
Although those searches are recorded, which should act as a deterrent for phishing expeditions.by 4ndrewl
3/28/2025 at 1:22:57 PM
With the very welcome changes to how Google stores location history, they will no longer be capable of answering geofence warrants. The cell carrier themselves (Verizon / T-Mobile / BT / Orange etc) can still provide some tower logon information but I'm not sure if they are storing E911 GPS info.by aftbit
3/28/2025 at 3:01:26 PM
Don't forget Ring capturing every time you enter or leave your home.by walthamstow
3/28/2025 at 1:24:51 PM
> Because of how effective this is for catching even fairly minor violations like failure to pay road tax,The main use of those cameras is to deter not paying road tax and not having insurance, and to spot stolen and wanted cars.
It's not a problem if all number plates are stored for some time but it requires strict rules (duration of storage and access to data), which the document you linked to describes.
by mytailorisrich
3/28/2025 at 2:11:15 PM
> > even fairly minor violations like failure to pay road tax> The main use of those cameras is to deter not paying road tax
No-one has paid a road tax in the United Kingdom since 1937. Vehicle excise duty is (currently) based on CO2 emissions (which is why EVs are subject to a £0 VED) and has always gone directly into a general government fund -- it does not maintain the roads. Of course the government could choose to spend some of that money on road upkeep, but they don't have to.
by aaronmdjones
3/28/2025 at 2:53:23 PM
"Road tax" is a widespread colloquial term, and that tax must be paid to be able to drive on public roads. So let's not lose ourselves in nitpicks, it brings nothing to the discussion at hand...by mytailorisrich
3/28/2025 at 2:45:48 PM
You’re absolutely right, I’ve edited my comment to say vehicle tax rather than road tax. It’s actually one of my personal bugbears as well, so I can’t believe that I said that.by noodlesUK
3/28/2025 at 3:29:41 PM
I worked for a company that builds traffic info systems based on such cameras, but we didn’t share any of that data, unless given a warrant.by tgv
3/28/2025 at 4:11:25 PM
Didn't yet. Which is how most of this technology starts out, and is the largest problem with people building these systems. See: courts ruling that 23andMe can sell their data yesterdayby spoaceman7777
3/28/2025 at 4:48:06 PM
Did you see the logs of how much data was released?by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF
3/29/2025 at 7:30:41 PM
There were no logs. We were the only ones with the decryption key.by tgv
3/29/2025 at 2:10:21 AM
PNC = police national computer, I believe. It's helpful when less well known acronyms are expanded.by osrec
3/28/2025 at 5:01:25 PM
You can make your own ALPR, it's quite easy.by underseacables
3/28/2025 at 3:55:37 PM
Wait until you find out about the thousands of camera's on public transport.At least cars being tracked are just cars. On public transport the tracking is much more invasive (and pervasive).
by elric
3/28/2025 at 2:18:51 PM
And yet, if your car gets stolen thieves don't even bother putting fake/cloned plates on it most of the time - police could in theory look up where the car was last seen using ANPR but either they don't have the time or they don't actually have the ability.>>Because of how effective this is for catching even fairly minor violations like failure to pay road tax
It's not really, I don't believe so anyway. Keep seeing posts from various police forces around the UK about so-and-so car being stopped, no tax since 2022 for instance. And I'm like....ok great, but how come it took you 3 years to find them??
by gambiting
3/28/2025 at 2:58:28 PM
Typically cars get stolen for temporary-ish use - to commit a crime somewhere, go joyriding, to strip for parts, etc.It might only be on the road for 2-8 hours. Maybe a day.
To catch someone during the window of opportunity it would make sense requires a lot of things to happen in quick succession - the owner needs to notice, a report with all the necessary details needs to be entered, and they need to go by a reader - and an officer needs to follow up in a timely fashion before the ‘lead’ goes stale.
Sometimes departments will have their acts together enough that it’s possible, but usually they don’t. Police departments are part of the government too, after all. Most of the time if the car is found at all, it will be found days later abandoned on the other side of town, or on blocks.
The ‘best’ often have an officer (or 2) obsessed with catching stolen cars, and some of them will catch 10-12 in a shift. It’s genuinely impressive watching them work.
by lazide
3/28/2025 at 2:31:26 PM
I think ANPR comes very handy in US when there is an amber alert.by debarshri
3/28/2025 at 8:30:54 PM
Every civil liberties infringement (e.g., warrantless search and seizure) comes in very handy for solving crimes. That's why the constitution specifically places limit on it, because you have to balance that with the loss of liberty.by pinko
3/28/2025 at 3:14:48 PM
I wonder if such LPR systems and/or Amber alerts have yet been used to intercept pregnant women traveling out of state for an abortion.by Hnrobert42
3/28/2025 at 7:36:47 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_childrenby Lammy