Loss of Privacy

In an effort to meet targets and raise revenue, the UK Police are using the automatic number plate recognition database designed for catching criminals and terrorists to meet their financial goals and quotas.

Police whistleblowers also claim that intelligence stored on the national Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) database is “at least 30 per cent inaccurate”, which has led to the wrongful arrest of innocent motorists and the seizure of their cars.

The revelations highlight growing concerns about a burgeoning target culture among enforcement agencies and local authorities seeking to bolster figures and income with so-called soft arrests and fines on otherwise law-abiding members of the public.

ANPR was originally used in counter-terrorism operations in Northern Ireland. However, since the late 1990s it has been introduced on Britain’s roads. A network of static and mobile cameras surrounds major cities and monitors motorways and main roads. Each camera can capture over 3,500 images of licence plates and drivers an hour. The pictures are cross-referenced with police intelligence and data from DVLA and insurance firms to generate “hits” which are then sent to police.

The police themselves are encouraging such behavior by holding contests, which has led to the unethical behavior by the police. This includes scouring the databases to find something on a driver and harassing motorist until they become angry and belligerent, at which point the police arrest them for public order offenses.

Whistleblowers also expressed concern that managers are “engineering” arrests to meet targets. Officers have been sent to re-arrest drivers fined for driving without insurance. Before cars can be released from the pound the driver has to apply for insurance. “[Officers were] checking with insurers if Mr Smith had declared his recent penalty,” said one officer. “If the answer was ‘no’ they arrested him for obtaining insurance fraudulently.”

But not all police officers are taking part in this questionable behavior.

Hertfordshire officers say they have reported concerns to senior managers but believe they are being ignored, as good performance targets and revenue earned from ANPR are too important.

Other complaints from citizens include the use of CCTV cameras for parking offenses, over zealous enforcement of wheelie-bin etiquette, and unreasonably harsh littering fines.

Members of the Chaos Computer Club have been able to clone the digital security ID cards that some German airports use and then used them to access all airport areas [German] [English]. They used an RFID reader that cost less than €200 to scan a valid card. The scanner was then able to emulate the card.

Officials at the Hamburg airport admit that this is a vulnerability, but they are quick to point out that cards are not the only means of security at the airport. This, however, still does not address the problem. The system dates from 1992, which is definitely out of date, and was meant for access to low-risk places, such as schools and supermarkets, yet airport officials seem to not be taking the issue seriously.

Given that the cards allow persons to roam secure areas at the airport, they should be very concerned. The cards could allow a person to gain access to the cargo hold of an airplane. One could easily plant a bomb in that area with no one the wiser.

Apparently, it now stands in the United States that corporations are persons, but Guantanamo detainees are not.

Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

This is a horrific ruling from a sitting judge and he should be removed from his position. It’s been proven time and again that torture does not deliver reliable evidence. Unfortunately, the United States seems to be getting away with such abhorrent behavior while the world watches.

First, we had neighborhood watches.  They were designed to have neighbors keep an eye out for all the bad things that could happen while you were away.  Everyone thought it was a good thing.  Now, Los Angeles police Cmdr. Joan McNamara and police Chief William Bratton have developed iWatch, which they call their 21st century version of Neighborhood Watch.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association, headed by Bratton and composed of the chiefs of the 63 largest police departments in the U.S. and Canada, endorsed iWatch at the group’s conference Saturday.

Using brochures, public service announcements and meetings with community groups, iWatch is designed to deliver concrete advice on how the public can follow the oft-repeated post-Sept. 11 recommendation, “If you see something, say something.”
Program materials list nine types of suspicious behavior that should compel people to call police, and 12 kinds of places to look for it. Among the indicators:

–If you smell chemicals or other fumes.
–If you see someone wearing clothes that are too big and too heavy for the season.
–If you see strangers asking about building security.
–If you see someone purchasing supplies or equipment that could be used to make bombs.

The important places to watch include government buildings, mass gatherings, schools and public transportation.

You could be called a terrorist for watching these places too.  Not only are we supposed to stalk our neighbors’ every move, now we’re supposed to know all the components in making a bomb?  And how does knowing that information not make us suspected terrorists too?  How are we to prove that we only know this information because the government asked us to know it to find terrorists and that we aren’t terrorists ourselves?

The program also is designed to ease reporting by providing a toll-free number and Web page the public can use to alert authorities. Los Angeles put up its Web site this weekend.

We now have a toll-free number that will get people calling saying, “I saw a Muslim looking man asking about building security.”  The man ends up being harassed because he’s really Hindu and he was asking about building security because he was supposed to report there to pick up a badge that allowed him in a building.  People are going to use their own racism, stereotypes, biases, and bigotry to get innocent people into trouble with the law.

If someone reports something based on race or ethnicity, the police will not accept the report, and someone will explain to the caller why that is not an indicator of suspicious behavior, McNamara said.

Instead of reporting, “some Muslim looking guy” the person will just describe what the person is wearing.  Bias isn’t removed from the equation.  It’s just given a wink and a nudge and we pretend we aren’t being racist bastards.

The Bush Administration tried to do this with postal works, firemen, emergency workers, and others and it failed because it was too intrusive on individual privacy.  The fact is people hold too many biases to make informed decisions.  They are rash, jump to conclusions, and rarely gather and facts before accusing someone of being a terrorist.

People reporting things that are out of place is not a bad thing.  Encouraging people to scrutinize ever thing another human being does is.  We should have erred on the side of caution when initiating such a program instead of enlisting the help of normal, every day people who are not qualified or trained in dealing with the identification of who may or may not be a terrorist.

If you’re a UK citizen and planning to fly to Scotland, you might have to show your passport to get there.  Under new terrorism laws, the police want all British citizens to show their passports before entering Scotland.

The move emerged after five Tory front bench MPs, including Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, were among travellers ordered to show their passports when they arrived at Prestwick Airport on Wednesday.

Mr Grayling accused police of abusing powers designed to combat terrorists and warned it was “mission creep”.

He said: “”It is utterly and completely unacceptable for any police force to be doing routine identity checks on passengers travelling within the UK.

Yes, we know it’s unacceptable and we’ve been telling you for quite some time that this was going to happen, but MPs live in their own little worlds where this sort of thing would never happen to them.

“Acting like this simply undermines the credibility of our security legislation and will heighten concerns about civil liberties.”

Yeah, we told you this too, but you didn’t listen then either.

How can you get around this idiotic law?  That’s right, drive or take the train.  That is, until the police start enforcing this idea at train stations and the border between England and Scotland.