OTish: Congestion charging petition



Danny Colyer wrote:

> The proposal isn't to track individuals, but machinery.


Appreciated, but what business is that of HM Govt? Also presumably they
will want the owner to be responsible for providing names in the event
of an offence; would this not imply keeping records of operators of the
machinery? I believe businesses that keep pool cars are obliged to do
this already...

It seems to me that the debate reduces to one of philosophy; on the one
hand, society is composed of inherent criminals who must all be watched
all the time in order to prevent offending OR we are to be assumed law
abiding until such time as an individual commits an offence, at which
point the police do their thing. For me, the anti-libertarian aspect
outweighs all others. As soon as society decides we need to keep an
institutional eye on each other, I'm off... YMMV.

Tony B
 
I wrote:
>>The proposal isn't to track individuals, but machinery.


and Tony B responded:
> Appreciated, but what business is that of HM Govt?


What business is it of HM Govt to keep track of licensed firearms?

These are deadly machines used in public places. It is in the public
interest to maintain tight controls over their use. These controls can
be greatly assisted by knowing where the machines are and when.

> Also presumably they
> will want the owner to be responsible for providing names in the event
> of an offence; would this not imply keeping records of operators of the
> machinery? I believe businesses that keep pool cars are obliged to do
> this already...


Seems perfectly reasonable.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Simon Dean wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>> I wrote:


>>
>>> And how do you infer "gloating" from that post? Merely pointing out a
>>> few idiots... people who obviously don't agree with the petition. Or
>>> don't you like people having a different point of view?

>>
>> The post had a definite gloating tone.

>
> How can the written word have an inference?


It can't. It can have an implication. There is a difference.
 
Danny Colyer wrote:
> I wrote:
>>> The proposal isn't to track individuals, but machinery.

>
> and Tony B responded:
>> Appreciated, but what business is that of HM Govt?

>
> What business is it of HM Govt to keep track of licensed firearms?

They don't put remote tracking devices on them though. It's up to the
certificate holder to do the decent thing isn't it? At present, cars are
subject to as much scrutiny as guns.
>
> These are deadly machines used in public places.

That applies to a lot of things, which the govt. don't keep tabs on.
Bread knives, for example. Or chainsaws...
These controls can
> be greatly assisted by knowing where the machines are and when.


Why so?

>> Also presumably they will want the owner to be responsible for
>> providing names in the event of an offence; would this not imply
>> keeping records of operators of the machinery? I believe businesses
>> that keep pool cars are obliged to do this already...

>
> Seems perfectly reasonable.


Maybe so, after all businesses have all sorts of legal implications to
consider. However, such a scheme would mean that effectively people are
being tracked, not just vehicles.

I fully appreciate the damage and danger motor traffic causes; I still
can't get to grips with letting the state have powers of routine
surveillance like this though.
 
Tony B wrote:
> For me, the
> anti-libertarian aspect outweighs all others. As soon as society
> decides we need to keep an institutional eye on each other, I'm
> off... YMMV.
> Tony B


Me too!

pk
 
Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>reasons... But I wonder if people will jump on you and call you selfish
>and suggest that maybe you should work somewhere more local, or you
>really should cycle or take public transport because you could still
>enjoy yourself with little time of an evening, you just choose to want
>more...


People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
that is a choice.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Monday, February.
 
"Roger Thorpe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Buck wrote:
>
>> Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking devices
>> for every individual
>> in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local and
>> national government
>> can see where you are/have been at any given time?

>
> As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the government
> where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.


> Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
> albeit with less accuracy.


Only if it is swiched on!

Alan
 
"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>> Buck wrote:
>>
>>> Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>> devices for every individual
>>> in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local and
>>> national government
>>> can see where you are/have been at any given time?

>>
>> As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>> government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>> Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
>> albeit with less accuracy.

>
>
> There is:
>
> a> No compulsion to have a phone
> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.


Forgot, there is no record if it is a PAYG!
>
> Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of tracking
> any individual.
 
"Roger Thorpe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>
>>>Buck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>>>devices for every individual
>>>>in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local and
>>>>national government
>>>>can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>>>
>>>As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>>>government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>>>Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
>>>albeit with less accuracy.

>>
>>
>>
>> There is:
>>
>> a> No compulsion to have a phone
>> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
>>
>> Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of tracking
>> any individual.
>>
>> pk

> Where's the compulsion to have a car?


To be able to get away from home to collect food!

Alan
 
Alan Holmes wrote:
> "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> Buck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>>> devices for every individual
>>>> in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local
>>>> and national government
>>>> can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>>>
>>> As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>>> government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>>> Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you
>>> are albeit with less accuracy.

>>
>>
>> There is:
>>
>> a> No compulsion to have a phone
>> b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.

>
> Forgot, there is no record if it is a PAYG!


Not quite true.
Its a lot harder to put all the pieces together, and someone who was trying
to cover their tracks could make it very difficult to piece together if they
were conscious of the sorts of actions which leave a trail.



- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>> reasons... But I wonder if people will jump on you and call you selfish
>> and suggest that maybe you should work somewhere more local, or you
>> really should cycle or take public transport because you could still
>> enjoy yourself with little time of an evening, you just choose to want
>> more...

>
> People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
> that is a choice.


And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
ignorant moron you despicable pratt. I've never denied that choices
exist, only that choices don't exist for *myself* in my *current* situation.
 
Nick wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 8:52 pm, Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Most of you will probably have heard the news about the No 10
>>>> anti-congestion charging petition reaching 1 million signatures:
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6353353.stm>
>>>>
>>>> What hasn't been so well publicised, and is worth knowing, is that
>>>> there
>>>> is also a petition for those who like the idea of car tracking and road
>>>> pricing:
>>>> <http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TRACK-CARS/>
>>>
>>> There were 443 signatures when I clicked that link. After I signed
>>> and confirmed and refreshed a few times there were still 443
>>> signatures!

>>
>> Do you support the surveillance/civil liberties implications of the
>> proposed measures?
>>

>
> Yes. Because driving does cause danger and inconvenience to others and
> hence it is fair that those who choose to drive are closely monitored.


So driving automatically endangers everybody else... which would be
wrong... driving does not do that. Dangerous driving does...


>
>> Do you also support the idea of compulsory biometric ID cards?
>>

> No primarily because the technology doesn't appear to be viable.
>
> But there is a distinction between monitoring a person who choses to
> drive a car and monitoring everyone.


Same as dangerous criminals endanger everyone else...

So there's obviously no bias here, you only favour controls on
drivers... because people in general are obviously not dangerous...

gah.

get your head out of where it don't shine

Cya
Simon
 
"Simon Dean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>>> reasons... But I wonder if people will jump on you and call you selfish
>>> and suggest that maybe you should work somewhere more local, or you
>>> really should cycle or take public transport because you could still
>>> enjoy yourself with little time of an evening, you just choose to want
>>> more...

>>
>> People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
>> that is a choice.

>
> And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an ignorant
> moron you despicable pratt. I've never denied that choices exist, only
> that choices don't exist for *myself* in my *current* situation.


Oh do calm down. This is a cycling NG. Every day the residents of this NG
are out on the roads experiencing the joys of car-biased society. Is it any
surprise that people write about the downsides of cars?

You've said more than once you only respond to the driving related stuff on
this NG. How just treating it as people letting off steam and ignoring it?
It'll save you a lot of bother.

Now, how far have you got on your bike safety stuff?

clive
 
Simon Dean wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>>> reasons... But I wonder if people will jump on you and call you
>>> selfish and suggest that maybe you should work somewhere more local,
>>> or you really should cycle or take public transport because you could
>>> still enjoy yourself with little time of an evening, you just choose
>>> to want more...

>>
>> People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
>> that is a choice.

>
> And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
> ignorant moron you despicable pratt. I've never denied that choices
> exist, only that choices don't exist for *myself* in my *current*
> situation.


Just a quick heads up to apologise for this language.

Cya
Simon
 
Alan Holmes wrote:

> "Roger Thorpe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>p.k. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Buck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt's question is valid, would we accept personalised tracking
>>>>>devices for every individual
>>>>>in the U.K. including cyclists, linked to a central net so local and
>>>>>national government
>>>>>can see where you are/have been at any given time?
>>>>
>>>>As I understand it the system proposed can, at worst tell the
>>>>government where you've BEEN, rather than where you are.
>>>>Your mobile phone company, on the other hand, does know where you are
>>>>albeit with less accuracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is:
>>>
>>>a> No compulsion to have a phone
>>>b> No need to have the phone registered in your name.
>>>
>>>Phones can move around, quite legally, with absolutely no way of tracking
>>>any individual.
>>>
>>>pk

>>
>>Where's the compulsion to have a car?

>
>
> To be able to get away from home to collect food!
>
> Alan
>
>

Why do you need a car for that?

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!
 
Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
>>that is a choice.

>And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
>ignorant moron you despicable pratt.


Whoops, I touch a nerve there? Guess you're deeper in denial than I
thought.

>I've never denied that choices
>exist, only that choices don't exist for *myself* in my *current* situation.


Which is still obvious nonsense.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Tuesday, February.
 
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
>>> that is a choice.

>> And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
>> ignorant moron you despicable pratt.

>
> Whoops, I touch a nerve there? Guess you're deeper in denial than I
> thought.
>
>> I've never denied that choices
>> exist, only that choices don't exist for *myself* in my *current* situation.

>
> Which is still obvious nonsense.


This discussion's not helping anyone, you know.

A
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:+Ys*[email protected]...
> Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
>>>that is a choice.

>>And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
>>ignorant moron you despicable pratt.

>
> Whoops, I touch a nerve there? Guess you're deeper in denial than I
> thought.


Be fair to the guy - he did apologise in a subsequent post. Which you had
had a chance to read before you made this one.

clive
 
On 15 Feb, 16:59, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:+Ys*[email protected]...
>
> > Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
> >>David Damerell wrote:
> >>>People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
> >>>that is a choice.
> >>And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
> >>ignorant moron you despicable pratt.

>
> > Whoops, I touch a nerve there? Guess you're deeper in denial than I
> > thought.

>
> Be fair to the guy - he did apologise in a subsequent post. Which you had
> had a chance to read before you made this one.
>
> clive


ANPR is to the fore in the fictional town of Sandford, ACPO tells us.
"Sandford had the foresight to invest in the extensive Local Authority
CCTV scheme, as part of its CDRP [Crime & Disorder Partnership]
strategy. This involved ensuring the scheme was ANPR enabled and
paying for half a dozen extra cameras to cover some key routes into
the town. Sandford has also benefited from force level links with the
Highways Agency, which means that ANPR read data is available about
vehicles travelling on the nearby motorway. Chief Superintendent Jones
has also pooled investment with his adjoining division. This has
allowed them to cover some key back routes between the two, regularly
used by criminals, with a number of strategically located ANPR
cameras. As these have infrared capability, they provide intelligence
24 hours a day." This allows some interesting databases to interact.
For example, continues Jones, "We recently linked into the ANPR system
of over 40 of our garage forecourts. They benefit from our
intelligence telling them which vehicles to take payment from before
they serve them. In return, we get a considerable reduction in
forecourt crime, more intelligence on vehicle movements and
confirmation of the identities of those using the cars." Unhappily,
Jones doesn't explain how Sandford nick knows whether or not customers
are going to pay, nor does he say how the reactions of the lucky
victims are managed by the unfortunate cashiers. On which subject,
according to his colleague, DI Williams, "We expect to gain about
£50,000 income this year from hypothecation of ANPR fixed penalty
tickets under Project Laser 3. We have already invested that income in
a full time Intelligence Researcher, an extra part time Inputter, as
well contributing half a post to the force Central Ticket Office."
Over at serious crimes, DCI McKinnon says ANPR has revolutionised
reactive crime investigation. "For example, following a recent murder,
targeted enquiries with witnesses identified from ANPR reads as being
in the area during the material times not only saved considerable time
and resources compared to the old road check methods, it was more
accurate and identified two key witnesses. Most important of all it
also provided crucial evidence as to the time, date, location and
direction of travel of the prime suspect's vehicle. Her CID use it
regularly." This process, just in case you failed to notice, will have
involved going through all of the vehicle movement records for a
specific time in a specific area, then identifying and contacting
drivers who were in the vicinity at the time of the crime. Over at the
ANPR intercept team, PC Brown points out that high speed chases are
now needed less frequently, because the CCTV system in Sandford allows
them to "use the traffic control system to change traffic lights and
block the target vehicles in traffic." Congestion as a crime-fighting
weapon - splendid. Much, much more can be found in the full document.
®


http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/12/road_pricing_and_surveillance/

Big Brother?
Tish, pish and balderdash.

Do you have a number tattooed on your forehead?

If not, no. There are many other ways of getting about (not that you
will be aware of them if you own a car in the UK).

However driving a car does come with terms and conditions attached,
one of which is that the vehicle must be easily identified. I can't
believe you've not noticed the big numbers on there. They're really
quite obvious.
 
Quoting Clive George <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Quoting Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>>People will probably jump on anyone who, as you have done, denies that
>>>>that is a choice.
>>>And I'll probably rip you're f***ing throat out for being such an
>>>ignorant moron you despicable pratt.

>>Whoops, I touch a nerve there? Guess you're deeper in denial than I
>>thought.

>Be fair to the guy - he did apologise in a subsequent post.


That is why I'm only mocking him gently for his outpouring of froth.

>Which you had had a chance to read before you made this one.


While that happens to be the case, you cannot know it for sure. That
article might not have reached me even now; it might never reach me.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace