e-Borders snares 2,800 possible crims, 5 tons of baccy

neat

so you wont mind having your abode fitted with video and sound recording devices in case you ever decide to commit a crime in the future? after all your not a crim so why worry

ravenviz

Please tell me your name, address, bank details, where you travel to, who you travel with, your medical conditions...

I mean why not? How am I different from any number of people who can access all the information collected on you?

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, so tell me.

I'm sure you could...

I'm sure you could care less about that, but I wonder if you could *not *care less about bootlegging ?

Pedantic minds want to know.

if only they could waste it at the rate you suggest

we're forgetting that for every government salary pound there is a buried pension liability of at least as much again in today's money.

Not to mention a skewing of opinion towards ever-increasing surveillance and restriction - these gubmadroids are hardly the liberal easy-going, productive sort.

Re: Cheap at only £4 million pounds a criminal

Are you divding £1.2Bn by 300?

The £1.2Bn figure is for 10 years 2007-2017 so assuming that it's 300 "serious crimes" so far and the capture rate will double as the coverage doubles it's probably going to be more like 1500 in total, so £800k per "serious" criminal, i.e. murderers, rapists, sex offenders and violent criminals, given the cost of a murder case usually goes over £1m (and often tens of millions) it's not a disproportionate amount.

You also have to take into account that the murderer, rapist, sex offender and other violent criminals should in theory be less likely to offend again (or at least have less opportunity).

OK, £800k to possibly catch a murderer? still too expensive? that's not considering the other 2700 arrests for less significant crimes (which will probably ramp up to 5000+), although £1.2Bn sounds like a hideous amount of money, the numbers do stack up.

So, if financially, it is reasonable (or at least the case can be argued), what about the "intrusive" loss of privacy? well, if you look at the details collected, it's stuff off the passport (name, nationality, gender, date of birth, passport number and expiry date etc) and where and when (carrier’s name, number and departure and arrival points), so far this data doesn't look very private, but also other details are captured; (reservation information, such as date and place of reservation, passenger contact and payment details, baggage details) - that's to my mind the only privacy issue, although carriers are not obliged to collect this information, they are only obliged to pass it on.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-05771.pdf

Not clear on the concept

You clearly do not get the 'privacy thing'. We all have a right to go about our business without being monitored by the authorities or quizzed on the reasons for our journeys. The ANPR system is a gross invasion of privacy. Collecting information because it might be useful down the track somewhere is actually against the law - although our spineless and powerless ICO will not do anything about it. European law says that failure to provide the information demanded by e-Borders cannot be used as a reason to bar travel, and that carriers must so inform their passengers. The British have steadfastly ignored this inconvenient little fact, but it is clear that at present the entire e-Borders system is in serious breach of EU regulations - the main one being that all EU citizens have the freedom to travel from cone member state to another within the EU without our journeys being recorded. e-Borders is going to record every journey you make, even within the EU, for 10 years. Not allowed!