Coming soon to a gas station near you!

[Ed W]

When it comes to surveillance, the Brits are 5-10 years ahead of us.  They credit the traffic camera system for a one-third decrease in motor vehicle deaths.  We would probably see the system as too intrusive here, even though some cities have adopted red-light enforcement cameras similar to the British system. 

But this story is interesting.  Gas stations - or petrol stations - have a problem with people who pump fuel, then drive off without paying.  Some stations here require pre-payment.  But some of the Brit petrol stations installed cameras to read customers license plates as a deterrent.  Now, the government wants to piggy back on those video cameras, looking for tax cheats.

From The Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-at-petrol-stations-will-automatically-stop-758518

CCTV at petrol stations will automatically stop uninsured cars being filled with fuel

Downing Street officials hope the hi-tech system will crack down on the 1.4million motorists who drive without insurance.

CCTV will automatically stop uninsured cars being filled up under new government rules.

Cameras at petrol stations will automatically stop uninsured or untaxed vehicles from being filled with fuel, under new government plans.

Downing Street officials hope the hi-tech system will crack down on the 1.4million motorists who drive without insurance.

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras are already fitted in thousands of petrol station forecourts.

Drivers can only fill their cars with fuel once the camera has captured and logged the vehicle's number plate.

Currently the system is designed to deter motorists from driving off without paying for petrol.

So, if you owe back taxes, have any outstanding tickets, or perhaps even an overdue library book:

[dbacks fan]

Look for all the cameras at QT the next time you buy gas. It's similar to going to a casino, the only place you are not on camera is in the restroom.

And speaking of drive offs, stations in Tulsa still allow pump first then pay?

[nathanm]

Yes, there is a large consultancy lobbying to have the Government give them many millions of pounds to leverage the private CCTV cameras in petrol stations to do this. The plate recognition was installed as the station owners' way of combating driveoffs. Don't ask me why they went that route, I don't know.

According to some locals, something about the way they handle auto registration there doesn't lend itself to requiring the owner show proof of insurance at the time of registration or renewal.

Meanwhile, here at home, we have police using ANPR systems to troll parking lots looking for cars to impound and to track "criminals," and the NSA has been violating federal law for a decade now by spying on (and archiving most all, apparently, they're up to a yottabyte now) domestic communications traffic. Oh, and we can't even see the interpretation of the Patriot Act that the FISC used to justify continuing to allow this because it's classified. Yes, they refuse to release even a redacted version of the legal opinion that allows the NSA to intercept all communications without a warrant even though the plain language of the Patriot Act allows that power only with respect to terrorism suspects. Apparently that's ok because "the law is public." Never mind that the public law seems to contradict the secret interpretation.

So pardon me if I chuckle politely at the statement that the British are ahead of us in surveilling their own people.

With the revelations of the past couple of weeks, I am beginning to think that the security state is a more pressing threat to our country than our economic troubles are.

[dbacks fan]

And if you haven't done anything wrong or illegal you shouldn't be paranoid unless they are like one of my ex's friends that won't get a flu shot because they are implanting micro chips to follow people.

[Red Arrow]

And if you haven't done anything wrong or illegal you shouldn't be paranoid unless they are like one of my ex's friends that won't get a flu shot because they are implanting micro chips to follow people.

Time for one of my favorites:

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. 

[nathanm]

And if you haven't done anything wrong or illegal you shouldn't be paranoid

My sarcasm detector failed to trigger on this. I'm hoping it's just in need of recalibration, because I'd rather not spend my Sunday evening explaining why that line of reasoning is both specious and dangerous.

[dbacks fan]

My sarcasm detector failed to trigger on this. I'm hoping it's just in need of recalibration, because I'd rather not spend my Sunday evening explaining why that line of reasoning is both specious and dangerous.

Save your breath nate, you've told all of us before.

[patric]

So pardon me if I chuckle politely at the statement that the British are ahead of us in surveilling their own people.
With the revelations of the past couple of weeks, I am beginning to think that the security state is a more pressing threat to our country than our economic troubles are.

Well, the UK probability is ahead of us in sheer technology deployment, but even their top cops don't believe all the hype:

According to Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, the officer in charge of the Metropolitan police unit. "CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure," Neville told the Security Document World Conference in London. "It's been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There's no fear of CCTV". http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1


If there's no real effect on crime, then why does the money keep rolling in to the contractors who build and maintain the cameras and databases?

The chief constable of Thames Valley police has heavily criticised a camera scheme which would have placed thousands of Birmingham Muslims under surveillance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2010/oct/01/anpr-birmingham-thames-valley-muslims-report-01oct10

Project Champion was abandoned in June after an investigation revealed police had misled residents into believing that hundreds of counter-terrorism cameras installed were to be used to combat vehicle crime and antisocial behaviour.
In fact, the £3m project was intended to monitor people entering and leaving the predominantly Muslim suburbs.


And a little closer to home...

The Associated Press learned that $135 million from the White House's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, or HIDTA, was granted to police in New York and New Jersey alone since the program was initiated after September 11, 2001. But because there is little to no oversight governing the funding stream, neither local nor federal officials are sure exactly how that money was spent, or for which investigations equipment purchases made with the HIDTA money have been employed.
License plate tracking equipment purchased with HIDTA funds were used to surveil Muslims at mosques and to track the license plate numbers of worshipers coming and going.  http://privacysos.org/node/494

[BKDotCom]

If there's no real effect on crime, then why does the money keep rolling in to the contractors who build and maintain the cameras and databases?

There's a lot of money to be had in security theater.   Just look at the TSA.

[nathanm]

Save your breath nate, you've told all of us before.

Aren't you in Oregon now? Perhaps you should listen to your Senator:

We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says.

This is completely unacceptable in a free country.

[custosnox]

Save your breath nate, you've told all of us before.

So if you follow the line of reasoning that "if your not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about," I guess that means that you would have no problem with the cops coming into your place whenever they feel like it to search for any illegal or illicit activities.  After all, if your not doing anything wrong...  Perhaps we should start recording every phone call you make so that they can insure you're not a terrorist working on a plot.  Simply put, if you feel that this is not an invasion of privacy and just a step to enforcing laws argue from that point, but don't try to pass of that whole if your not doing anything wrong bit.

[dbacks fan]

So if you follow the line of reasoning that "if your not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about," I guess that means that you would have no problem with the cops coming into your place whenever they feel like it to search for any illegal or illicit activities.

That would be illegal search and siezure

After all, if your not doing anything wrong...  Perhaps we should start recording every phone call you make so that they can insure you're not a terrorist working on a plot.

Yeah, I know, warrantless wiretaps autorized after 9/11

Simply put, if you feel that this is not an invasion of privacy and just a step to enforcing laws argue from that point, but don't try to pass of that whole if your not doing anything wrong bit.

If I am out in public I'm well aware of the monitoring that is going on, it's not like that is anything new. If a cop cruises a lot with ANPR device, and they find my stolen car great, they find the plate of a suspect in a crime, survale the car and get a warrant. For the most part, my right to privacy ends when I leave the confines of my house and go out into public.

[nathanm]

For the most part, my right to privacy ends when I leave the confines of my house and go out into public.

Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees. Too bad that the spectre of national security causes them to wet their pants and allow secret interpretation of the law. I'm perfectly fine with the facts involved in FISC decisions being kept secret inasmuch as is possible when releasing the interpretations of the law, but keeping the state of the law secret is reprehensible.

[custosnox]

That would be illegal search and siezure

Yeah, I know, warrantless wiretaps autorized after 9/11


If I am out in public I'm well aware of the monitoring that is going on, it's not like that is anything new. If a cop cruises a lot with ANPR device, and they find my stolen car great, they find the plate of a suspect in a crime, survale the car and get a warrant. For the most part, my right to privacy ends when I leave the confines of my house and go out into public.

We allow them to search our person and effects without a warrant, and what the argument on that is, is that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.  Same idea comes about when it comes to searching your car or whatever.  As far as your right to privacy ending when you leave your home, you can feel that way if you want, but I prefer to still be protected by the bill of rights.  That being said, what is in view of the public is in view of the public, regardless if it is seen by a cop sitting there watching or a camera in the same spot recording.  It is one thing to use technology to observe what already is in view, it is another to take away a right on the idea that if your not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about.

[guido911]

There's a lot of money to be had in security theater.   Just look at the TSA.

We have this going on every day...