We Brits are the most surveilled nation on the planet with more cameras per square acre than everyone else put together. Geeklawyer hates that. He hates the future police plan for automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) that enables the capability that whenever he charges around on ‘The Terrible and Inexorable Wrath of God’ he will be watched and logged and his route and dalliances recorded in the Police National Computer. Oh sure, its all for his own good, to make him safe; it helps deny the roads to criminals and terrorists — yada yada.
What made him chuckle was the response of the Home Office to the Surveillance Commissioner’s assertion that these cameras were probably illegal by their use and intrusiveness. Did the Home Office and cops pause for thought? did they say “oooh, we appear to have overstretched ourselves. Ultra Vires. Let us desist.”
No, the Home Office said that it would consider whether primary legislation was needed to deal with the problem. Tony Bliar said, boasted indeed — weirdly, a while back that if the police asked him for something he would give it to them, period. A more extreme example of a long multi-party approach to police powers.
Geeklawyer wishes, forlornly that he’ll yield, that governments would resist the populist urge to play ‘we are harder than you other parties’ politics with civil liberties. The police don’t need these omniscient surveillance powers, they just want them: if you keep yielding to every demand can you wonder they become spoilt?
You may be a bit surprised therefore when Geeklawyer says that the justification for claiming illegality seems a little shakey. He cannot say that he regards a number plate as personal data nor even the images of drivers captured by such devices. Geeklawyer’s picture does not, yet, identify him by name address or suchlike; nor does a number plate always identify the driver, a family car driven by a son or friend for example, though it will often do so indirectly in most cases. The broader problem this complaint addresses inadequately is that data protection legislation is being shoehorned into a role it wasn’t directly designed for: the role of protecting the citizen from the state.
Geeklawyer is not saying that he likes ANPR, very far from it and he’ll pragmatically settle for interim rulings of illegality, but we need a more rigorous and intellectually self-consistent charter of civil liberties in the UK. Some chance.
Without in any way wishing to suggest that bikers break the law — but… the old phrase ‘put a sock in it’ is most useful. Charon used to hang out late on a Friday night at Bar Italia in Soho in 1996 (in full race leathers) on a Ducati 916sp with a sock over the number plate… and then went on a well known motorway for a quick circuit… sober… at 2.00 am.… via the M4…
No traffic.… it was interesting… also did the Blackwall Tunnel run at 5.00 in the morning in the good old days with race cans… just to listen to the noise… again… no traffic.. no danger. We called it ‘making progress’ !
The Police were, of course, in bed…catching up on episodes of ‘The Bill’ on UK Gold TV
Anyway… how can the cops deal with a cartoon character?… I don’t have any DNA… and I forgot to draw fingerprints onto my fingers… ‘serendipitous’.
Mind you… ‘Old Bill’ don’t like to find bikers with socks on bike number plates… but.… it is getting colder… and even number plates have human rights…yeah right!
You could try this with the ‘Wrath of God’… BUT…for god’s sake… don’t even think about ‘special transparent film’ — doesn’t work… but an electronic ‘flip up rear number plate’ — activated from the a button just above the front brake lever… does work. I don’t, of course, have such a device — but I know a man who does. It works. Mind you… he does the ‘Cannonball run’ down to Bol d’or (En France de Sud) most years…with 2000 Euros in his pocket to pay the fines if caught… totally irresponsible.… and I can’t remember hs name.
I have been having a recurring thought on this whole surveillance issue. I know that from a political standpoint, the time is not yet right for this yet, BUT…
I don’t know if you are familiar with ‘judo strategy’ — the idea of using what an opponent is committed to against them? Well, I am sure you are aware that courtesy of the RIAA/MPAA/BPI et al., the penalties for copyright infringment are becoming increasingly draconian. Might it be possible to use that to limit the spread of cameras, or at the very least the ex-post processing/storage of the data? How? A combination of several things I have read recently set me thinking:
First, the use of box-wrap licensing (a la ACRA v. Lexmark)…
http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/09/02/the_latest_ip_crime_boxwrap_patent_infringement.php
…and then something in Lawrence Lessig’s ‘The Future of Ideas’ about copyright in incidentally filmed items…
“But what about the stuff that appears in the film incidentally? Posters on a wall in a dorm room, a can of Coke held by the “smoking man,” an advertisement on a truck driving by in the background? These too are creative works. Does a director need permission to have these in his or her film?
“Ten years ago,” Guggenheim explains, “if incidental artwork … was recognized by a common person,” then you would have to clear its copyright. Today, things are very different. Now “if any piece of artwork is recognizable by anybody … then you have to clear the rights of that and pay” to use the work. “[A]lmost every piece of artwork, any piece of furniture, or sculpture, has to be cleared before you can use it.” …“If you cannot find the original of a piece of artwork … you cannot use it.“
http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/excerpts/index.shtml
Finally, this article by Jennifer Granick of Stanford Law School’s ‘Center for Internet and Society’…
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69771,00.html?tw=rss.PRV
…which refers to ‘Riya’, a company making software which will crawl web sites and do facial recognition on any image it finds. The company claims that those who do not consent to such processing should simply refuse to allow pictures of themselves to be posted online. (Right!)
Now, those who would seek to crush freedom would argue that by walking down the street you give implied consent to your being filmed. I would argue that even for those people for whom that might once have been the case, the CCTV network is now so pervasive that daily life is effectively impossible without being filmed so such voluntary consent can no longer be inferred. In addition, there are a number of instances where people are filmed when they are unaware of it or have no choice (any hidden/disguised camera, any use of telephoto, photographing people unawares or by surprise etc.*)
So, here’s the question:
Say you made a piece of original copyrightable artwork (photo/logo or similar) and placed it actually on your face such that it would be impossible to to photograph you or do facial recognition without reproducing and/or processing the artwork. Might the camera operator be in breach of copyright, with all the attendant penalties? What about if the image were overlaid with a punitively termed licensing agreement? — a ‘face-wrap’ licensing agreement!
1. Is any creation/use of images solely for security exempt? Might a face-wrap licensing agreement at least limit long storage periods and/or secondary processing?
2. Could camera operators claim the contract is void for mistake, perhaps because there was no affirmative activity on their part by which they accepted the contract? Even though their employees directly control the gaze of the cameras?
3. Does the answer to 2 change if operators or their partners conduct post-capture processing?
4. Does the answer to 2 change as control of the cameras passes more and more to autonomous software agents?
5. Many people simply capitulate in the face of RIAA/BPI extortion because the potential losses and the cost of litigation are too large relative to the proposed settlement. Might it be possible to use this tactic to slow the spread of cameras by raising their running costs?
At the very least, publicity might help force into the public consciousness some concept of just how much of this is going on. Not that I have much confidence that the unwashed masses will have much concept of the threat to liberty that such systems present, but that must not derail efforts to preserve liberty. As Mr. Churchill so eloquently put it: “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed…”
Regards,
MS
I think there was a plan to have this number plate cameras attached to PC Ploddit’s helment thus enabling robo cops.