Sheffield Council to decide the fate of your ANPR data

[sccsux]

They have approved this system and therefore the democratic process has been served.

 

As we don't have a true democracy in this country (as proven by your comments that local government follows central government orders) I find the above statement to be insulting to the meaning of a democracy.

 

As I said, a JR would soon sort out whether this kind of thing was lawful and/or legal.

[sccsux]

The Council's system does none of the above, but you show no concern whatsoever about the Police system. Basically you're moaning because it's something the Council is doing.

 

As I said. Some sort of regulatory body needs to be in place. Then their use would be regulated & SCC would have to put in place certain safe guards, have a retention limit on the data (in law).

 

A JR would be able to force the issue and make sure there is some kind of regulation involved (especially as you want to keep the data unencrypted/plain text/unanonymised for up to 5 years)

 

Your SF name sums up your attitude very well.

 

Why's that then? Maybe I've been a victim at the hands of SCC?. BTW - In case you don't read all my posts... I'm not anti council - just anti stupid.

 

The Council doesn't "disregard" your views, it simply does not agree with them. If Councils could only implement things which EVERYONE agreed with, NOTHING would ever be done. Is that what you want?

 

Way to go.

 

Deflect criticism away from the OP (cameras spying on us and retaining data for an - as yet - undetermined period of time - min of 5 years).

[sccsux]

In fact a few posts back, someone was actually conceding that very point, it is legal.

 

Only because there is no legislation currently in place to regulate their use.

 

This post is indicative of your attitude. The Police already have a fully operational ANPR system, which:

• DOES link number plates to keeper details
  
• DOES feed information on your movements into a national database
  
• DOES record video images of you
  

 

That's the Police, not our local bureaucracy. And, when someone takes action regarding their unregulated use, the Police will be able to justify their use.

[Captain_Scarlet]

The point is that the law makers clearly do not see any reason to regulate the use of ANPR, so there is no need for any law. Things are illegal if they are contrary to regulations. If no regulation exists, it's clearly legal until otherwise regulated.

 

Councils, the Police and other organisations are using ANPR, because it exists, it works and it's permissable in law.

there was also no apparent need for regulating Members of Parliament expenditures and what happened? They abused that right. People like you and your work are already on the firing line, don't make another Daily Mail type page 1 news.

Is it reasonable to expect politicians to cover every aspect of every part of the Council's responsibility in an election manifesto? I think not, it's impossible.

 

You have to trust that they will represent what they feel is the view of their electorate.

Yes, if they don't their actions are viewed as forming an agenda not discussed or proposed and leads to suspicion of corruption. If you don't tell us what you do or want to do we're likely to think you're doing what you want, not what we want and what I want is those millions spent on roads, their surfacing, their size and their quality, not cameras.

Fine words, but an unrealistic standpoint. We have to work within the frameworks provided by central government, they hold the purse strings, so naturally, they expect to set the agenda.

The kind of money you speak off was never asked for. The money to be spent on roads is paid for by us monthly and is not dished out by London.

There's no point in me or my colleagues bringing forward policies and programmes which have no chance whatsoever of being adopted or implemented. That would be a waste of the taxpayers money.

It would show you have clout and show you have a little expertise, if you have no choice over what you do then you're not needed, someone in London's already done your job.n If you don't open your mouth no one will ever know you disagree, we're opening our loud mouths right now telling you're rubbish and what you do isn't worth the medieval roads you drive on work.

I'd rather they didn't bother with this mass surveillance.

 

People know which roads get busy at which times. If one randomly gets jammed up then it's easy enough to spot and navigate around. If you tell everyone about it then other roads end up getting jammed up instead.

 

I'd rather keep my privacy than be given odd blipverts of information rarely of practical use.

 

Nothing in this thread has justified keeping number plate data - we've demonstrated how the thing can be used equally effectively without this data.

 

Did you know that the Trafficmaster blue poles do real-time journey times by making a "hash value" of the middle 4 characters of a number place. They designed the system with this privacy protection from the start because they were concerned about infringing privacy.

Spot on mate! Apart from the blue camera part which is just as superflous as Planner's current expenditure.

I don't believe any of the Councils involved have been innundated with complaints, so no, it clearly isn't an unpopular policy.

I propose that posters in this thread that have views against this project lobby both their local councillor and the council to have this project put in the bin. Would that make you happy?

The Council's system does not spy on people, it tracks a vehicle movement via the number plate, our system holds no personal data, we don't know who you are and don't want to.

That's called spying and tracking vehicle movement is knowing where the vehicle is.

It's all well and good "knowing" where problems exist. There are many many places where there are problems all over the country.

Let's worry about Sheffield's pot holes for which we pay taxes for before somewhere else's.

The people who provide the funds for transport schemes want quantified justifications for proposed projects, we have to provide business cases that monetarise the benefits of the scheme and provide a benefit / cost ratio. The transport models we have are used for this. The ANPR data will feed the models, the better the model the better the output.

You didn't have to ask for anything, if you did then you're clearly responsible for it all. It's like lottery, they'll give money only if you play.

The real time driver information systems which the ANPR data will feed have been proven to reduce congestion in other cities.

So is killing everyone on earth, it's just not what we want. We want you to do this without the cameras and making roads better, not spending valuable money on something else.

There's no requirement for public consultation on something like this.

 

What would be the point, consultation is usually done to inform the decision makers? The system is now being installed and it already has political approval.

It not being a requirement doesn't mean you can't do it. Statements like that show that you don't care about the public and you are working on an agenda you know does not have public approval. It's like the euro, Brownie doesn't want a referendum as he knows we'll tell him to shuv it where sun don't shine (so say the latest polls).

It's impractical to go to the public and ask them whether they approve everything a Council does. For a start, how do you even define "the public"?

The public is everyone, even you.

That's why everything has to be approved by elected representatives, your Councillors. They have approved this system and therefore the democratic process has been served.

Because politicians cannot be trusted and even chosen by us will do what they like and even if boycotted someone will get elected and scam the living dailight out of us, big things like spending millions on something superfluous (as in something that has no role) should be put forward to the public, that way, once newspapers get involved and it;s shown to be a giant waste of money you guys can go dig a hole and hide and still not understand why we told you "no".

This post is indicative of your attitude. The Police already have a fully operational ANPR system, which:

• DOES link number plates to keeper details
  
• DOES feed information on your movements into a national database
  
• DOES record video images of you
  

I'm sure most of us don't like that either but don't change the subject, we're talking about your project, not the police, we can open another thread for that. Keep on topic if you please, no passing the buck.

The Council's system does none of the above, but you show no concern whatsoever about the Police system. Basically you're moaning because it's something the Council is doing. Your SF name sums up your attitude very well.

You've just shown us it does.

The Council doesn't "disregard" your views, it simply does not agree with them. If Councils could only implement things which EVERYONE agreed with, NOTHING would ever be done. Is that what you want?

That's a childish statement.

 

Who wants planner1 to personally go to the Council and tell it the public is not behind them on this one? I'm willing to do the same if as Planner1 has said he has no choice over can if he so chose object to this but hasn't chosen to because he's a lazy, blazé, insolent, inept civil servant?

[Planner1]

Only because there is no legislation currently in place to regulate their use.

Yes, and you could say that about anything which it's currently legal to use!

[Planner1]

he's a lazy, blazé, insolent, inept civil servant?

Bet you wouldn't have the balls to say that to me in person.

[Captain_Scarlet]

And that's all you read in the entire post? You going to do punch me? I then have your DNA and get you prison, promise, I won't link you DNA to your person and only monitor where your DNS is going. You understand DNA is not personal data, I'll use it for statistics only off course.

Yes, and you could say that about anything which it's currently legal to use!

Something is legal when it is authorised, when it is referred to in law, if there is no law on something it is not legal as there nothing written about it. Semantics my dear pencil pusher, semantics.

[sccsux]

Yes, and you could say that about anything which it's currently legal to use!

 

And, as people have continually tried to make you aware, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it. Yet you fail to grasp such a simple concept:loopy:

[Planner1]

And, as people have continually tried to make you aware, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it. Yet you fail to grasp such a simple concept:loopy:

 

No, I understand it very well.

 

What you seem to fail to understand is just because you and a handful of other people disagree with something, it doesn't mean that it should not be done.

 

I understand some people's reservations about this type of system and I have made sure that the people running the SYITS project are very aware of these concerns and are actively looking at ways they can address them.

[Planner1]

And that's all you read in the entire post? You going to do punch me? I then have your DNA and get you prison, promise, I won't link you DNA to your person and only monitor where your DNS is going. You understand DNA is not personal data, I'll use it for statistics only off course.

 

Yes, exactly as I said, you're clearly the kind of person who hides behind a keyboard and monitor, without the strength of conviction or character to argue your case in the real world. That's the difference between you and me, I actually go out there and have the debate with real people in real life.

 

Why don't you try saying something constructive and give the whinging, nit picking, point scoring and petty name calling a rest?