Mobile 'phones crackdown

James Annan said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Cameras is the way to go, why not just film everyone and pull the ones
with phones? or is there a civil liberty issue there?

Just a bit :-)

What is the civil liberty issue with people being photographed in public
places? It happens all the time. It would be very difficult indeed to
use a camera in Japan if permission had to be sought from all those
photographed.

I can only speak about how I perceive things to be in the UK, not Japan,
but...

Clearly the issue is not one of being photographed. As you say, it would be
impossible to take a picture in public if it was. The issue is what is
done with the photo after it is taken. If a private individual takes a
picture then only them or a few other people will see it. If a govt. dept.
takes pictures of the public you can be sure that it is not to adorn the
drab walls of their offices. Some people get very worked up if they can't
go about their lawful business without the state prying into everything
they do.

Mind you I do think they're fighting a losing battle trying to get rid of
the CCTV cameras that are proliferating all over the place.
--
Chris

"Monkey Hanger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

>Cameras is the way to go, why not just film everyone and pull the ones
>with phones? or is there a civil liberty issue there?
>
Just a bit :-)

What is the civil liberty issue with people being photographed in public
places? It happens all the time. It would be very difficult indeed to
use a camera in Japan if permission had to be sought from all those
photographed.

I can only speak about how I perceive things to be in the UK, not Japan,
but...

Clearly the issue is not one of being photographed. As you say, it would

be

Quoted message said:

impossible to take a picture in public if it was. The issue is what is
done with the photo after it is taken. If a private individual takes a
picture then only them or a few other people will see it. If a govt. dept.
takes pictures of the public you can be sure that it is not to adorn the
drab walls of their offices. Some people get very worked up if they can't
go about their lawful business without the state prying into everything
they do.

Mind you I do think they're fighting a losing battle trying to get rid of
the CCTV cameras that are proliferating all over the place.

in the words of Judge Dredd, the innocent have nothing to fear ;-)

Pyromancer said:

If the govt really do manage to put lots of police
constables back on the beat, perhaps they might help

11% fewer under this government, ISTR.

More speed cameras though.

in message <[email hidden]>, Monkey Hanger

(') said:

Clearly the issue is not one of being photographed. As you say, it
would be impossible to take a picture in  public if it was. The issue
is what is done with the photo after it is taken. If a private
individual takes a picture then only them or a few other people will
see it. If a govt. dept. takes pictures of the public you can be sure
that it is not to adorn the drab walls of their offices. Some people
get very worked up if they can't go about their lawful business
without the state prying into everything they do.

Eeeerrrrrrmmmm.... in virtually every town centre in Britain you are
being watched by 'the authorities' on CCTV virtually all the time. Yes,
I agree it's a civil liberties issue, but frankly that horse has
bolted.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:58:35 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the govt really do manage to put lots of police
constables back on the beat, perhaps they might help

Quoted message said:

11% fewer under this government, ISTR.

8.7% more since 1997, ISTR.

Quoted message said:

More speed cameras though.

Hurrah! One on every lamp post please.

I've just got back from the MDG emporium. Lots of "safeguard your
livelihood!" "protect your licence!" products in evidence. The idea
of safeguarding their licenses and livelihoods by OBEYING THE F***ING
LAW is clearly too advanced a concept for these people to grasp.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Monkey Hanger

(') said:

Clearly the issue is not one of being photographed. As you say, it
would be impossible to take a picture in  public if it was. The issue
is what is done with the photo after it is taken. If a private
individual takes a picture then only them or a few other people will
see it. If a govt. dept. takes pictures of the public you can be sure
that it is not to adorn the drab walls of their offices. Some people
get very worked up if they can't go about their lawful business
without the state prying into everything they do.

Eeeerrrrrrmmmm.... in virtually every town centre in Britain you are
being watched by 'the authorities' on CCTV virtually all the time. Yes,
I agree it's a civil liberties issue, but frankly that horse has
bolted.

Not so sure that the horse is beyond catching. As you say, there are CCTVs
everywhere, but the issue is still "what is done with the photo after it is
taken". Or video tape in this case.
--
Chris

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

It'd be nice if it were workable, but how do you prove it? What would

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be to stop malicious claims?

So...um....why not have a think about how workable a "malicious claim"
would be, and how quicly the malicious claimant would find themselves
accused of wasting police time.

Person X rings hotline to claim (rightly or wrongly) that person Y was
phoning and driving.

Person Y denies this.

Now what?

:-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nathaniel Porter said:

Person X rings hotline to claim (rightly or wrongly) that person Y was
phoning and driving.

Person Y denies this.

hmmm ...
<hypothetical> Police obtain records from mobile phone co, and take it
further if a call was being made and the phone was moving at the time
reported. Also take action against X if there is evidence of
malicious (false) / frivolous complaints.

Oops, that implies technology to log movement. I know that exists:
I implemented it in the 1980s (for different purposes:-). But do the
mobile phone cos have it in a form that could be used for this?

--
Nick Kew

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:58:35 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the govt really do manage to put lots of police
constables back on the beat, perhaps they might help

Quoted message said:

11% fewer under this government, ISTR.

8.7% more since 1997, ISTR.

Quoted message said:

More speed cameras though.

Hurrah! One on every lamp post please.

I've just got back from the MDG emporium. Lots of "safeguard your
livelihood!" "protect your licence!" products in evidence. The idea
of safeguarding their licenses and livelihoods by OBEYING THE F***ING
LAW is clearly too advanced a concept for these people to grasp.

Halfords in the run up to Xmas ?
(yes it remains Xmas until Dec 1st)

BTW Robert Dyas have a marginally useful item for Satan's list; a wind up
LED torch

Nathaniel Porter said:

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

It'd be nice if it were workable, but how do you prove it? What would

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be to stop malicious claims?

So...um....why not have a think about how workable a "malicious claim"
would be, and how quicly the malicious claimant would find themselves
accused of wasting police time.

Person X rings hotline to claim (rightly or wrongly) that person Y was
phoning and driving.

Person Y denies this.

Well, if Person Y was not on the phone at the time (as shown by the
phone records), Person X is likely to face some difficult questions. If
Person Y was at work or anwhere else where there is decent evidence that
they were not driving, likewise. If Person X can't describe the
car...etc etc. Note I'm not saying that every report of an offence
should automatically result in a prosecution and conviction, but I bet a
cursory investigation would suffice to find out the truth (beyond
reasonable doubt) in the vast majority of cases. Was the phone actually
in use? - easy to check. Does the timing and location correspond to
usual use of a car, or alternatively are there plenty of witnesses
putting the accused somewhere else at the time?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:03:34 -0000, "MartinM" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

I've just got back from the MDG emporium. Lots of "safeguard your
livelihood!" "protect your licence!" products in evidence. The idea
of safeguarding their licenses and livelihoods by OBEYING THE F***ING
LAW is clearly too advanced a concept for these people to grasp.

Quoted message said:

Halfords in the run up to Xmas ? (yes it remains Xmas until Dec 1st)

Not likely, although I may be forced to pay a visit to the
Customisation, Highlighting And Visibility section at some point. No,
I went to the local Ovlov shop to collect some fitted mats.

And found they offer an oil change with new filter for £25 all in inc
VAT. Quite good, really!

Quoted message said:

BTW Robert Dyas have a marginally useful item for Satan's list; a wind up
LED torch

Are you winding me up? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Monkey Hanger said:

Clearly the issue is not one of being photographed. As you say, it would be
impossible to take a picture in public if it was. The issue is what is
done with the photo after it is taken.

So...um...what do you think the "civil liberties" issue is with people
looking at photographs after they have been taken?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

"MartinM" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

BTW Robert Dyas have a marginally useful item for Satan's list; a wind up
LED torch

As does Field & Trek.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

BTW Robert Dyas have a marginally useful item for Satan's list; a wind

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LED torch

As does Field & Trek.

ooh thanks; I am a FandT fan, being the only shop in the SE that stocks any
type of caving gear, will check them out. Torches seem to be the biggest
selling Xmas present for men after socks these days.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

BTW Robert Dyas have a marginally useful item for Satan's list; a wind

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LED torch

As does Field & Trek.

£5 less in Dyas ATM, and the same model..

James Annan said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

> It'd be nice if it were workable, but how do you prove it? What would

there

Quoted message said:

> be to stop malicious claims?

So...um....why not have a think about how workable a "malicious claim"
would be, and how quicly the malicious claimant would find themselves
accused of wasting police time.

Person X rings hotline to claim (rightly or wrongly) that person Y was
phoning and driving.

Person Y denies this.

Well, if Person Y was not on the phone at the time (as shown by the
phone records), Person X is likely to face some difficult questions. If
Person Y was at work or anwhere else where there is decent evidence that
they were not driving, likewise. If Person X can't describe the
car...etc etc. Note I'm not saying that every report of an offence
should automatically result in a prosecution and conviction, but I bet a
cursory investigation would suffice to find out the truth (beyond
reasonable doubt) in the vast majority of cases. Was the phone actually
in use? - easy to check.

Person Y claims they were indeed driving but their passenger, person Z,
was the one using the phone.

Ziggi [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Quote from Velvet: "freephone, reg number and time."
That is, time provided by the responsible and sensible citizen indicates
that the _driver_ was seen using his/her phone while *driving*.

No it doesn't. It shows that the registered owner was. Given a "normal"
household where a single car may be driven by two (Possibly more)
people, or a company vehicle which could be driven by hundreds, the
registration does not tie the driver to the vehicle.

Jon

James Annan said:

Monkey Hanger said:

Clearly the issue is not one of being photographed. As you say, it would
be
impossible to take a picture in public if it was. The issue is what is
done with the photo after it is taken.

So...um...what do you think the "civil liberties" issue is with people
looking at photographs after they have been taken?

The gummint looking at the photos and knowing what you were doing at the
time? Being able to track you from the moment you leave your house until
the moment you return at night?

Like I said, some people get very worked up about this. I'm not one of them.
Yet. Perhaps I'll get more worked up if I actually find out that these
photographs have been routinely abused.

I seem to remember there being lots of interminable threads on this subject
in uk.legal. Probably x-posted from alt.politics.misc and a few others. I'm
not bored enough to go and look for them though.
--
Chris

Richard said:

Person Y claims they were indeed driving but their passenger, person Z,
was the one using the phone.

And if they can find a Person Z who could reasonably have been
travelling in the car at the time, and there are not sufficient
witnessess placing Person Z in a different place entirely (like at
work/school), and Person Z is prepared to lie to help cover up the crime
then Person Y would probably not be found guilty (or even charged). So
what is your point? Any regular phoning driver will find it difficult to
arrange this cover-up on a regular basis, and repeated independent
reports would surely be adequate for a conviction anyway. Should no
report of burglary be investigated, on the basis that any accused person
might be able to cook up an alibi?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:39:03 +0000, Monkey Hanger <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

I seem to remember there being lots of interminable threads on this subject
in uk.legal. Probably x-posted from alt.politics.misc and a few others. I'm
not bored enough to go and look for them though.

Yes, but were any of them not started by Mike Corley? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University