back to article It's amazing the UK Parliament agreed to track 22bn Brits' car trips. Oh right – it didn't

The legality of a police Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) database in the UK has been called into question by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. The National ANPR data centre now holds 22 billion car journeys, he said. By 2015 it was estimated that the data centre was receiving around 30 million number plate "reads …

  1. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    "There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database...

    "... its creation was never agreed by parliament; and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament."

    "Well, yeah, but nobody told us we *couldn't* do it. (Of course we didn't actually bother to ask anyone...)"

    1. Roq D. Kasba

      Re: "There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database...

      Is anyone even remotely surprised?

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: "There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database...

        Is anyone even remotely surprised?

        The police are just following the lead of GCHQ. After all, if it's OK for spies to secretly collect data on everyone to protect us all, it must be OK for the police to do it, right? Right?

        Policing by consent. They seem to have forgotten what it means.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database...

      Don't worry, (maybe we should be very worried) now it has been pointed out Big Sister will fix it.

      1984 got one thing wrong - It's not Big Brother watching you but Big Sister is watching everything you do.

      1. Roo
        Windows

        Re: "There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database...

        "1984 got one thing wrong - It's not Big Brother watching you but Big Sister is watching everything you do."

        I doubt it's Big Sis, I think Nanny is still large and in charge. Judging by her track record of failing to keep Hameron's privates private and Tony and his chums from using lies to start a war she does a pretty poor job of keeping her charges in line.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Grey Pants Retarden Re: "There is no statutory authority.....

      ""... its creation was never agreed by parliament; and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament."...." Actually, that is complete cobblers. As with everything else the coppers having been doing which costs money (so, everything the coppers do, basically), the ANPR system has been subject to parliamentary reviews over the years and legal review (especially under the Con-Lib 2010 alliance, as shown here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK). Indeed, the coppers themselves have been obliged to keep the public up-to-date with developments (as shown here - http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/taking-action/making-decisions/decisions-made/0262014-police-innovation-fund-201516-national-anpr/). So, the politicians of all major UK parties have not only been informed but have approved the development of the ANPR system and database.

      So it seems that - as usual - you were just too busy to actually do any reading before bleating. Am I surprised you so eagerly fell for another scaremongering, click-bait article? This is my surprised face - not!

      1. Graham Marsden
        Facepalm

        Re: Grey Pants Retarden "There is no statutory authority.....

        Let's see:

        We have a report from the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the guy who was appointed *by the Government* to look at these matters on one hand and, on the other, a Funding *Bid* which *recommends* "that the Commissioner approve the submission of a bid to the Police Innovation Fund that if successful would support the development of the National ANPR Service" and a page from Wikipedia that Matt has managed to dig up to support his usual argument that we should allow the State to snoop on all of us, because *he* thinks that's a good idea.

        Which one do you consider the more reliable, boys and girls?

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: Grey Pants Retarden "There is no statutory authority..... @Matt

        There is a world of difference between oversight and legal authority. There has been concern amongst some academics with an interest in data protection and surveillance for some time about where the legal authority for the ANPR system came from. That concern has now solidified through the report of - now read this carefully - *the person appointed by the government to look at the legality of the system*. That carries a lot of weight, and you can't brush this one off with your usual pro-surveillance, pro-spy, pro-government overreach postings.

  2. Tony S

    Legality

    So, if the database is not legal, then that would make any data it contains not legal; and as such, it could not be used as evidence in a court of law.

    If someone is prosecuted and the sole or main evidence is the data from ANPR, then that data should be rejected or at least challenged. If someone has already been successfully prosecuted based upon that data, they could ask for the case to be reviewed and the judgement to be set aside.

    Not a lawyer; but based upon a course that focussed on evidence and procedure within court cases, I think that I'm correct. Not doubt in time we will see loads of spam in the manner of PFI, indicating that you could get your money back.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Legality

      "So, if the database is not legal, then that would make any data it contains not legal; and as such, it could not be used as evidence in a court of law."

      Aren't we in the territory of it's not legal, but it's not unlawful either, so "they" will get away with it until the law is clarified?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Legality

        They will just get away with it. If it becomes an issue, the Government won't examine if it's right. They will pass a retrospective law making it all legal, protecting the police from prosecution and letting them keep the data. So yes, the police are following GCHQ's example exactly.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Legality

      Doubtful, data protection law does not supersede criminal law. Also there is very little that can be dismissed from evidence for breaching a different law.

      If a police officer stops your car for no reason at all but sees a gun in it, you can still be prosecuted despite the initial stop not being for a lawful reason. Also if a police car with a broken headlight stops you for speeding then the fact that the car is illegal doesn't give you a mitigating circumstance for your speeding.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Legality

        It's worth noting that in Britain if evidence is in front of a court then it's admissible. It doesn't matter if it's been legally acquired or not. In America evidence not obtained lawfully is not admissible in court.

        Lots of people appear to get confused about this, probably because of watching American crime drama programs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Legality

          Yes, I don't think the poisoned tree doctrine works in quite the same way in the UK. If I break into your house and see you murder someone we'll both be off at Her Majesty's...

          On the other hand I think you can cast doubt on the reliability of a burglar who claims to have seen something and I believe doubt could be cast on evidence obtained in a way which makes it unreliable so if the ANPR database had security wholes, for example.

        2. Tony S

          Re: Legality

          "It's worth noting that in Britain if evidence is in front of a court then it's admissible. It doesn't matter if it's been legally acquired or not."

          PACE would appear to disagree with you: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/pace.htm

          Although it is important to note that failure by a police officer to adhere to the codes of practice does not render them liable to criminal or civil proceedings, their failure to adhere to what the codes state can still be introduced as evidence in civil and criminal proceedings (PACE 1984 s.67). Additionally, any evidence obtained by the police in relation to the investigation of any criminal offence where they have failed to adhere to PACE, can be deemed inadmissible in court thus prejudicing the case against the defendant

          (My emphasis)

          The key item would then appear to be if the court decided that PACE was breached by the use of an unlawful system (not illegal; unlawful)

          1. The First Dave Silver badge

            Re: Legality

            @Tony S

            I don't think you understand what "inadmissible in court" actually means...

            1. Tony S

              Re: Legality

              @ The First Dave

              Would you care to elaborate?

              1. The First Dave Silver badge

                Re: Legality

                @Tony S

                I think that Andrue has done a pretty good job already.

          2. AndrueC Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: Legality

            where they have failed to adhere to PACE, can be deemed inadmissible in court

            The operative word is 'can'. As I understand it the judge decides and it seems traditionally they normally let anything in. Also whilst a single item might be inadmissible I don't think the concept of 'fruit of the poison tree' is ever applied. So whilst you might not be able to present a document found without a warrant you can present evidence found from a search of a locker mentioned in said document. In the US I believe you'd have to be able to show that knowledge of the locker could have been obtained legally anyway.

            1. Tony S

              Re: Legality

              "As I understand it the judge decides and it seems traditionally they normally let anything in."

              It might seem that way, but they are bound by the rules.

              "Generally, in order for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and reliable." http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/admissible-evidence.html

              A considerable number of cases involving digital data have failed, primarily because the evidence submitted did not meet the condition of being reliable, because (normally) the CPS couldn't demonstrate that the chain of evidence was accurate or complete.

              1. AndrueC Silver badge
                Thumb Up

                Re: Legality

                "Generally, in order for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and reliable."

                Well yes, but being obtained illegally doesn't necessarily violate any of those terms (although it ought to imply the last one). Anyway I see your supporting link and will raise it with another of mine.

                'Is all evidence admissible?

                In criminal proceedings, all relevant evidence presented by the parties is prima facie admissible as the UK courts have adopted an inclusionary approach towards evidence in order to favour the victim and ensure a fair trial. In a case in 1861 it was confirmed evidence is admissible even if it were stolen. The rationale for this approach is that the court considers the primary aim of the justice system to be the discovery of the truth and the unearthing of guilt. This is prioritised above the protection of the accused’s right to private life. Nevertheless the courts have discretion under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude evidence which lacks relevance and which might, by its admission, endanger trial fairness. This contrasts with the exclusionary approach of the courts of the USA to illegally obtained evidence, which prioritises the need to deter the police from unconstitutional behaviour. Although the UK courts do not wish to encourage illegally methods to obtaining evidence on the part of the police, discovering guilt is prioritised. '

                And before we go too much further I'd like to point out that I am not a lawyer. I'm a computer programmer and I have a different set of more draconian and less flexible rules I have to follow :D

                1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  Re: Legality

                  "In criminal proceedings, all relevant evidence presented by the parties is prima facie admissible as the UK courts have adopted an inclusionary approach towards evidence in order to favour the victim and ensure a fair trial."

                  Nevertheless the admissibility or even relevance of any piece of evidence is unchallengeable if it could prejudice the ability of the trial to estalish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

                  Does the database contain actual images? If not then the ANPR output is the sole evidence that a numberplate with that text has been read. But if there's no statutory basis for the database then there's no statutory provision for maintaining the apparatus or even for approving it in the first place so its output must surely be regarded with suspicion.

                  Even allowing the accuracy of the number recognition system there is then the small matter of whether the number was genuine. Anyone using a motor to commit crime must surely have at least considered the possibility of false places. Unless it can be shown (how?) that the plates were genuine then the evidence must surely be considered irrelevant.*

                  And that's before we even start questioning the chain of evidence of a database which lacks statutory authorisation.

                  *Unless, of course, it were established that the defendant was using a vehicle with those false plates at the relevant time.

                2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

                  Re: Legality @ Andrue C

                  You are quite correct about the UK's inclusionary attitude to evidence. In some ways it is a scandal, and should be changed to become exclusionary. However, the country with the morally more dubious attitude (UK) has a far smaller percentage of the population in jail than in the country with the morally superior approach (USA), so perhaps we shouldn't mess with a system that works :-)

                  1. AndrueC Silver badge
                    Childcatcher

                    Re: Legality @ Andrue C

                    so perhaps we shouldn't mess with a system that works

                    Not unless the changes can be proven to be better, certainly. Another difference between the two seems to be the nature of 'arrest'.

                    In the UK it seems to just be something the police do to avoid you leaving while they investigate. In some cases you can be de-arrested five minutes later and sent on your way without even seeing the inside of a police station. If you're not convicted it won't even show up on a standard background check so has little or no impact on most people.

                    In the US it seems to be considered a far bigger deal with nasty consequences.

                    1. Peter2 Silver badge

                      Re: Legality @ Andrue C

                      Implementing American evidence law in the UK is perhaps actually more absurd than implementing American patent law (complete with the USPTO to run it) in the UK.

                      How would doing so serve truth and justice?

          3. DavCrav Silver badge

            Re: Legality

            "Additionally, any evidence obtained by the police in relation to the investigation of any criminal offence where they have failed to adhere to PACE, can be deemed inadmissible in court thus prejudicing the case against the defendant"

            So this covers things like doctored CCTV footage, not stolen business records. Chain of custody is important in the UK too.

        3. AndrueC Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Legality

          Lots of people appear to get confused about this, probably because of watching American crime drama programs.

          I suspect some might be a bit disappointed if they rely on privileged communication as portrayed in US dramas as well. There ain't much of that around in the UK. I believe that only legal privilege exists and spousal communication is voluntary and not absolute.

      2. Ejit

        Re: Legality

        "If a police officer stops your car for no reason at all"

        The Police have no power to stop a vehicle "for no reason". They can however stop any vehicle for any reason provided it is in the execution of their duty as a constable in uniform. Any subsequent search of the vehicle must be in accordance with law (warrant, reasonable suspicion). Items found by an unlawful search makes prosecution very difficult...not impossible.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Legality

          "The Police have no power to stop a vehicle "for no reason""

          Hence the reason I said the stop would be illegal if it was stopped "for no reason". They don't need to search your car to see a gun, you don't need a warrant to visually examine a vehicle without opening the doors.

    3. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Re: Legality

      Evidence in a UK court is admitted if it is in the interest of justice for it to be admitted. The Judge decides and how it was obtained is largely immaterial. Of course with ANPR evidence there are many reliability and continuity problems but these should be dealt with by the opposing barristers who will explain to the jury all aspects of a large, replicated and distributed, secure database relying on optical character recognition in a system provided by the lowest bidder, outsourced, moved overseas, returned to UK, copied, backed up, restored and queried. No possibility of error.

      I'm all for scroats driving without tax, insurance and MOT being collared but the police have to more or less catch them in the act. Once recognised and checked the VRN can be used to cue the traffic police or discarded. The database behind the ANPR system is all about surveillance and intelligence. It is extra-legal and our only hope is getting it in front of the European Court.

  3. AceRimmer
    Black Helicopters

    This is nothing

    Compared to how tracking via self driving cars will work

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: This is nothing

      Or indeed one of those black box recorders that lowers one's insurance premiums.

  4. gurugeorge

    You're wrong, you don't need a warrant to search a vehicle in the Uk

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Grey area...

    Roads are a public location, so there is no right to privacy. Probably not ethical though - they should delete the data within 24 hours (unless a court order explicitly requests particular cars to be tracked)

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crystal ball gazing

    Let me make a few predictions as to what they're doing with it.

    1. It is among the data in that illegal mass surveillance database set Theresa May recently admitted to.

    2. It is cross linked to the other data, particular phone IMEI, work and pensions etc.

    3. Co-traveller is applied to that data set too. So who travels with whom in what car when where to where.

    4. I bet they even try to cross link to internet traffic. e.g. booking a ferry provides a car reg record which is handed to the home office.

    So much lovely data.... did an MP meet with a lawyer? Did a Journalist from the Guardian meet with a source? Who was the source? Where did they go? Who are friends of the source?

    This reminds me of the DNA database the police built. DNA given voluntarily on the agreement it would be destroyed was instead kept and a DNA database built up, outside the law.

    It was challenged in the EU court, found to be illegal (and had no legal basis in UK law, Parliament hadn't created any such database).

    Jacqui Smith then replaced "blanket DNA databse" with a minor condition of "DNA for Arrestable offense" to get round the EU "no blanket" ruling. But at no time was Parliament and pesky democracy involved.

    It likely won't include Parliament this time, you can control a weak minded Home Secretary by playing to her prejudices (you have all her private emails, internet surfing, where she travels with whom, and a mass of other data, so knowing the target is trivial).

    But its difficult with 600 MPs who answer to their constituents, why herd 600 sheep when you can herd one!

    1. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Crystal ball gazing

      This is all getting waaaay too complicated. Wouldn't be easier to put nano-RFD chips, coated with a bio-compatible adhesive, in the breakfast cereals?

  7. Mage Silver badge
    Big Brother

    The Cameras ...

    Can they easily be "updated" and backend SW do illegal facial recognition too?

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: The Cameras ...

      Any firmware upgrade capability is covered under classification MAGINOT BLUE STARS. If you do not have MAGINOT BLUE STARS or SCORPION STARE classification then you should present yourself to your supervisor immediately.

  8. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    Simply cut the IT budget for these nosy cops. They'll soon find themselves having to re-use preciuos disc space like the rest of us, making them more selective in what they keep in their database.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Morality

    I have followed the legality argument above. But I doubt whether the legality issue will ever be brought to court.

    As for the morality of the scheme, are there any supporters? How can anyone, even someone as amoral as a politician, copper or secondhand car thief defend keeping seven years of vehicle movement records as moral?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: AC Re: Morality

      ".....As for the morality of the scheme, are there any supporters?...." Trying to argue morality would be stupid as it would be easier to demonstrate possible "good" uses of the system than the paranoid conspiracy theorists' "bad" cases.

      First case - think of the children - where the coppers are looking for a vehicle involved in the abduction of a child. Even if they don't manage to charge the abductor for the current case, being able to look back through the database would allow the authorities to see if the suspect could have used the same vehicle in the time and location of other child abductions. Are you going to try and argue it is immoral for the authorities to have a tool to help crack child abduction cases?

      Second case - terror! - where every budding jihadi knows (thanks to people like Snowden) that he should take the battery and SIM out of his phone before driving off to meet his fellow jihadis. ANPR not only allows the authorities to do live tracking of suspects, but also allows them to go back and look for at where he was during those times when the suspect has tried to go off-grid. Of course, knowing that their movements can be tracked also has a deterrent value. Want to argue against the morality of tracking terrorist suspects?

      Third case - witnesses - where the coppers can look at a particular stretch of road and time to find potential witnesses who may not realise they know vital evidence, or may not have realised they even needed to come forward to give a statement. It can also, of course, be used to disprove false alibis or validate real ones, such as when a suspect claims they drove off to place B when the crime was happening at place A. Want to argue against the morality of validating alibis?

      That is three simple "good" cases, please do try and supply three "bad" cases that aren't just conspiracy theorist wetdreams.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: AC Morality

        And if the UK ever had a coal industry (or any other industry) ever again, and there was a strike - this would allow the police to detect citizens moving around their own country so they could stop them without having to hang around on freezing motorway junctions

      2. Roo
        Windows

        Re: AC Morality

        "That is three simple "good" cases, please do try and supply three "bad" cases that aren't just conspiracy theorist wetdreams."

        I can supply three names relating to three cases where the surveillance personnel were the ones enjoying the wet dreams, Mark Kennedy, Jim Boyling and Bob Lambert. The authorities failed to properly supervise or discipline any of them, and went to great lengths to shield them from scrutiny, the only reason their nefarious and abusive activities came to light is that the victims unmasked them.

        Making it easier for faceless apparatchiks to stalk, abuse and harass the public 24x7 will make such abuses easier to perpetrate, and the continued lack of transparency will ensure that those abuses will remain unpunished. More incentive, continued proven to be ineffective deterrent will ensure that these incidents become more frequent - and probably more severe too.

        Deterring protest is suicidal over the long run - who is going to bear the bad tidings that need to be heard to avert disaster ?

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: AC Morality

        "every budding jihadi knows (thanks to people like Snowden) that he should take the battery and SIM out of his phone"

        Oh FFS Matt, anyone with the need learned that from TV and cinema long before anyone had heard of Snowden.

        But on the whole I do agree that Police having access to that data for those sorts of circumstances is not a necessarily a bad thing. The problem is the feature creep already in place or which will be in place and every traffic warden will be checking on where you've been and how long you stopped there. Not to mention every council employee who feels they are important enough to check up on you.

        The problem isn't really the collection or storage of data. The problem is how much, for how long, linking to other data and, most of all, who can access it and under what conditions they can access it and how secure it is.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: AC Morality

        First case - think of the children

        How many multiple child abductors do we actually have in the U.K.? Not many in recent years.

        How many of those crimes were solved with ANPR? None.

        Second case - terror!

        How many terror attacks in the last 5 years? 3

        Would ANPR have helped? No

        Third case - witnesses

        They don't need ANPR for that, they get it from phones. When was the last time you saw an accident then a sign for an accident and didn't come forward with information? when was the last time you saw an accident? There are 4 - 5.9bn CCTV camera's in the U.K, How is storing journeys going to help anyway? Surely you wouldn't need to join the dots so to speak if all you wanted was to identify drivers at a certain place.

        How do you justify holding 22bn journeys in a database unless you have some other reason for keeping it.

        Another issue that you fail to address is that who in their right mind would use a car registered to themselves to commit a crime?

        The issue here is not using it for genuine reasons such as car tax/insurance/M.O.T./stolen vehicles but the fact they are using it to map your journeys and storing this information.

        I don't need a conspiracy theory wet dream I just need strange magical super powers called Common Sense and Logic,

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

          Re: AC Re: AC Morality

          At least I see you didn't try and defend the "morality" angle. All I did was supply three possible "good" uses for ANPR and a database of previous travel, all you have done is confirm that those cases are valid, you did not supply three "bad" counters for the system.

          "....How many multiple child abductors do we actually have in the U.K.? Not many in recent years...." So you can't pretend they don't exist, you just want to pretend it can't happen because it destroys your argument.

          ".....How many terror attacks in the last 5 years? 3...." Because the UK's coppers and spooks have been very good at sniffing out many jihadis before they can act. And, off the top of my head, the coppers did use ANPR to track terror suspects Junead Ahmed Khan (who planned a car attack on US bases in the UK) and Haseeb Hamayoon (who wanted to "do a Rigby"), arrested before they could act.

          ".....They don't need ANPR for that, they get it from phones. When was the last time you saw an accident then a sign for an accident and didn't come forward with information?...." Not much help putting a sign up if the witness doesn't travel the same road again - duh! And phones alone may not turn up every driver, whereas ANPR would. Oh, and how do they get the phones that may have been present? Well, they go check one of those databases you whiners keep moaning about! Double duh!

          "....Another issue that you fail to address is that who in their right mind would use a car registered to themselves to commit a crime?....' Plenty of people, it seems. One of the major supporting arguments for the introduction of ANPR was that unregistered and uninsured drivers cost British car owners millions every year in additional insurance costs. The number of uninsured drivers has been falling in the UK as a direct result of ANPR (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/jessicainvestigates/10146140/How-many-uninsured-drivers-are-on-the-road.html).

          "....I don't need a conspiracy theory wet dream I just need strange magical super powers called Common Sense and Logic." Looks more like desperate denial to me. That and a healthy dose of paranoia.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: AC AC Morality

            I like the way you didn't address the most important point.

            Who in their right mind would use a car registered to themselves to commit a crime?

            That is where your argument falls over I'm afraid and you also fail on the 22bn records, why keep every single journey and for how long?

            I don't have paranoia I just have a view that the mass collection of information is not right and if or when it is used in a way that is counter to the principles society has been built on such as freedom to think, speak and have an opinion or privacy of the individual I'll come on here and remind you that you called everyone paranoid.

            P.S. Your argument on uninsured drivers was pointed out in my post, you don't need to know someones journey to know they are driving without tax/M.O.T./insurance, so why collect it? Why join the dots in the first place for everyone? Why not leave the data as-is and query it when a crime has actually been committed and thus you need the information?

            P.P.S. I'm not going to downvote your post because that's childish, you have an opinion as do I, by downvoting you show you have a narrow minded view and believe you are correct above all others without considering other possibilities.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

              Re: AC Re: AC AC Morality

              "....Who in their right mind would use a car registered to themselves to commit a crime?

              That is where your argument falls over...." Er, how? Every year the coppers in London alone stop dozens of vehicles owned by drug-dealers being used to transport drugs with said drug-dealers behind the wheel. You are crediting criminals with far too much intelligence. Fingerprinting has been around for over a century but dumb crims still get caught every day because they didn't wear gloves.

              "....and you also fail on the 22bn records, why keep every single journey and for how long?...." Again, how? You are assuming every crime is noted in real time, whereas many crimes are actually discovered long after they were committed. A simple case would be of a body buried near a road which may be undiscovered for years, but the ANPR records could allow the authorities to look back and see all the vehicles that went down the nearest road for the period the body was most likely buried in, thus generating a list of possible witnesses and suspects. Want to pretend all crimes are discovered instantly?

              "....I don't have paranoia I just have a view that the mass collection of information is not right...." So you have a view that you cannot support with any form of logical argument, you just maintain that it is "not right"? Yeah, that unreasoning fear is called paranoia, chum.

              "....counter to the principles society has been built on....." Which ignores the fact that society is also based on the principles of protecting the public from harm and also of providing legal security through investigating crimes, both of which ANPR does aid. Indeed, in the UK the authorities are legally obliged to provide both to the public.

              "....you don't need to know someones journey to know they are driving without tax/M.O.T./insurance, so why collect it?...." When someone has not insured a vehicle (or if they have declared it SORN), the coppers need to provide evidence that the vehicle has been used on the public roadway. The ANPR database can provide that.

              "....I'm not going to downvote your post because that's childish...." Well, I am going to downvote you because I think you didn't really put much thought into your post (possibly due to the paranoia...?).

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AC AC AC Morality

                I think you suffer from Pronoia. Everythings happy, the world's great and you are happy for all your personal information to be accessible by the powers that be. I do hope for your sake you or your family don't do or support anything that currently or in the future is deemed to be counter to our glorious government's actions or intent.

                Let me reply for the last time though it appears to be a bit of a waste of time as you are quite single minded which is a bit sad as being open to opinion gives you a much more fulfilling life.

                "Every year the coppers in London alone stop dozens of vehicles owned by drug-dealers being used to transport drugs with said drug-dealers behind the wheel. You are crediting criminals with far too much intelligence."

                So you know where a drug dealer has been? APNR is not on every street and will not show you who and where said drug dealer has supplied the drugs to or got them from. Also in case you don't know most drug dealers don't use their own car they get friends to ferry them around.

                "A simple case would be of a body buried near a road which may be undiscovered for years, but the ANPR records could allow the authorities to look back and see all the vehicles that went down the nearest road for the period the body was most likely buried in, thus generating a list of possible witnesses and suspects. Want to pretend all crimes are discovered instantly?"

                Again and you can check this yourself, APNR is not on every single street. In fact if you go and have a look about ANPR is usually on the edge of housing areas and between council boroughs.

                "So you have a view that you cannot support with any form of logical argument, you just maintain that it is "not right"?"

                Read first paragraph I explain it there, that doesn't just apply to you but anyone you associate with.

                "Which ignores the fact that society is also based on the principles of protecting the public from harm and also of providing legal security through investigating crimes, both of which ANPR does aid. Indeed, in the UK the authorities are legally obliged to provide both to the public."

                As I stated, using the records as-is is not an issue but when you record all journeys in a searchable database you are then adding the option of multiple use which is not just for crime.

                "When someone has not insured a vehicle (or if they have declared it SORN), the coppers need to provide evidence that the vehicle has been used on the public roadway. The ANPR database can provide that."

                As above all you need to know is that the vehicle is on the road. This can and is done in real time so the police can send someone to apprehend the offender.

                "Well, I am going to downvote you because I think you didn't really put much thought into your post (possibly due to the paranoia...?)"

                Good for you, you can call me paranoid all you want I might even put it on my tombstone. At the end of the day you are happy for our government to collect all this information and have no fear it may be used in a way that is counter productive to your freedom , you also believe that they are doing nothing wrong which leads me to my final point. If the government are collecting all this information and there is no ulterior motive then why hide it from parliament and the public? Surely this is something they should celebrate, hey everyone look at all the criminals this information has helped catch (before you counter with it needs to be secret try watching one of the various cops style show, they clearly show the use of ANPR in real time).

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: AC Morality

          >Think of the children,

          Specifically the school girl that was knocked down and killed on a crossing by a police car doing 70mph through a housing estate because his ANPR had detected (incorrectly) an out of date tax disk

      5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: AC Morality

        "Second case - terror! - where every budding jihadi knows (thanks to people like Snowden) that he should take the battery and SIM out of his phone before driving off to meet his fellow jihadis. ANPR not only allows the authorities to do live tracking of suspects, but also allows them to go back and look for at where he was during those times when the suspect has tried to go off-grid."

        And since well before Snowden any villain of any stripe knows that if he's up to something (AKA go off-grid) false plates are a good idea.

      6. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

        Re: AC Morality

        "That is three simple "good" cases"

        Let's see how you do with your own argument, MB. These are not cases you cite, these are simply "scenarios". Please provide evidence of specific situations wherein blanket ANPR has been used to effect in any of these scenarios? (NB: If I were doing a real impersonation of your rubbish arguments, I'd be asking for an example of when blanket ANPR has protected you as an individual, and refusing any other evidence.)

        Go ahead.

  10. Steve 114

    Lots of cameras round here. Small amount of crime, but if it happens - Plod has more than mugshots to help. 'Nothing the hide, nothing to fear'. Just wait 'til the outlaws nick your stuff, and see whose side you're on.

    1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      Why do you think being burgled would necessarily change my opinion on mass surveillance? Been burgled, had one car broken into and one stolen, and I *still* don't approve of endless CCTV surveillance. We deliberately moved recently into village without a single CCTV camera, where there hasn't been a burglary or similar crime for more than 10 years - counter to your argument about CCTV being a great crime-prevention tool. I do always try to stick a middle finger up at the ANPR cameras on the ends of the major bridge I have to use several time a week, though (it's a pinch-point, so the snoopers couldn't resist putting a camera there).

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Pothead

        ".....village without a single CCTV camera, where there hasn't been a burglary or similar crime for more than 10 years.....' Actually that point highlights the fact that the local authorities and coppers have to show there is a good reason to erect a CCTV system, such as high levels of street crime. The fact that your village with no crime has only one camera just goes to prove that their use is not for spying on all, otherwise your village would be as dripping in cameras as city centers are.

        "....I do always try to stick a middle finger up at the ANPR cameras on the ends of the major bridge I have to use several time a week.....it's a pinch-point....." So, despite the fact there are no other cameras in the area, destroying your cherished paranoid view that you are being spied on, and despite the fact that the pinch-point therefore makes a perfect spot for an ANPR camera to look for uninsured and untaxed vehicles, you persist in your childish views. How unreasoning and sad.

        1. Roo
          Windows

          Re: Pothead

          "So, despite the fact there are no other cameras in the area, destroying your cherished paranoid view that you are being spied on,"

          The cameras are spying on people, that's the whole point of them you velcro gloved numpty.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      > Just wait 'til the outlaws nick your stuff, and see whose side you're on.

      Bikes stolen, police tell me to go to their website. Report it, Get crime number, claim insurance.

      Car broken into, police tell me to go website, Report it, Get crime number, insurance doesn't cover it.

      But over the years I have paid 1000s in tax to fund the police, so far they are robbing me more than the outlaws.

    3. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      "Just wait 'til the outlaws nick your stuff, and see whose side you're on."

      Had my car broken into twice, in separate locations, with cameras pointed squarely at it. the Police informed me that "no footage was available" and that "witness statements are unreliable" so no further action was taken. This despite the fact that I had witnessed the second incident in person (saw the git smashing the window and running away) and was able to give them a full description and match to a locally known blagger on the ASBO records.

      I asked the officers what the cameras were for and they answered that they didn't know as "most CCTVs are privately owned and they have no legal access rights".

      Yep, I know which side I am on and its not the owners of private CCTV. (Surveillance for Profit).

  11. Andy Livingstone

    A small overlooked point

    There is no British law, is there? There is Scots law. There is English law. Each different in definitions of admissibility. Should we start this debate again from the beginning?

  12. Uberseehandel

    Where are the Rights Watchdogs when we need them?

    So the database grows to 22 Billion car journeys before anybody wakes up and starts making a fuss - pathetic!

    The people who live in Britain generally want to be safe, the, shall we say, Public Safety authorities generally want to catch (and convict) law breakers. Those are entirely different goals.

    None of the cameras have much to do with preventing crime, but are often the means by which miscreants are brought to justice.

    No wonder Britain has the highest per capita prison population in Europe.

    Finally, who has access (officially and unofficially) to this data?

    R+C

  13. JLV Silver badge
    Headmaster

    "22bn Brits' car trips"

    Wow, you folks have been busy. 22 of youse around nowadays?

    Maybe "Brits' 22bn car trips", eh?

  14. Alfie Noakes

    One rule for us...

    Is it ironic that the photo at the top of the article has the police car number plate obscured? ;)

  15. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Since when has ACPO actually needed anyone's permission?

    ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers, officially The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland) was replaced by the National Police Chiefs' Council. IACPO was incorporated in 1997 as a private company limited by guarantee, and as such, ACPO was not subject to freedom of information legislation.

    ACPO set up the camera spy system and it runs on the Hendon Plod computer.

    ACPO supervised the creation of one of the world's largest per-capita DNA databases, containing the DNA profiles of more than one million innocent people.

    Another failure by the Mad May of Hurst, Berkshire?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Since when has ACPO actually needed anyone's permission?

      We ARE the law...

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Since when has ACPO actually needed anyone's permission?

        Well if you are going to have crime it may as well be organised crime = ACPO

        1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

          Re: Since when has ACPO actually needed anyone's permission?

          ACPO - Association of Criminals and Police Officers.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More Tory peers anyone?

    When you can't bend the rules your way, just move the goalposts.

    Looks like some more retrospective legislation to look forward to...

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fait accompli

    Even if found unlawful now, I expect May and co. will do what they always do and change the law to suit their paranoid agenda. Loads of fixed number plate reader cameras suddenly appeared on the major roads where I live, with no announcements, public consultations or any notice whatsoever. Thought these sort of things were supposed to be approved by some sort of "authority" (I use the word VERY loosely), such as the courts or local councils. Doesn't seem to have happened and we now have the dubious situation of journeys being tracked. Of course, if you're doing nothing wrong........etc.

  18. OffBeatMammal

    Britain is a scary place these days

    I left the UK about 20 years ago for a three month contract... and never went home! When I do visit for a holiday these days it's vaguely terrifying the amount of surveillance that covers every square meter of the place. From the moment I step off the plane at Heathrow until the moment I go back up the jetbridge on the way home I suspect I am in sight of one or more cameras every moment I am outside my Mums house.

    I don't feel that in Berlin, in Paris, in Sydney, in LA or New York.

    It feels like the English have just given up, and it makes me sad.

    1. Roo
      Windows

      Re: Britain is a scary place these days

      "It feels like the English have just given up, and it makes me sad."

      Nah, we haven't given up, it's just that the Government doesn't actually represent us or act on our behalf any more, and they go to great lengths to quash dissent that doesn't suit them. On the other hand you'll find that the Newpapers, Radio, and BBC are quite happy to dedicate a ton of airtime to causes that the government is in favour of, and you'll find plenty of loud mouths like our very own Sheeple Botherer only too parrot the party line.

      Essentially the UK is run for the benefit of the the UK Government apparatchiks, the voters are window dressing at best, an irritation that can be ignored at worst. The UK has become a parody of the GDR in the 70s, but with central planning eschewed in favour of multinationals determining wealth distribution and the government lacking any kind of power to effect change.

      1. DocJames
        Pint

        Sheeple Botherer

        Brilliant! Have a virtual one -->

  19. Camilla Smythe

    I was on my way to Ambleve...

    But the signs seemed to be pointing in the wrong direction so I asked some nice IS chaps in Police Uniforms with pukka Turbans if anything was wrong? Having been reassured I was going in the right direction I continued my journey only to end up in the middle of a forest surrounded by Traffic Wardens in trucks loaded with machine guns. Apparently 'Did I Pay Road Tax For This?' was not the right question to ask at that particular time. Having been rendered dead I cannot really give any more advice but hopefully someone else might be more successful and share.

  20. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    Time to get that Aston Martin with revolving numberplates "valid in all countries". Seriously, I have been considering replacing my numberplates with OLED displays for some time now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oddly

      I have been toying with the idea of having a row of powerful IR leds shining down on the plate (they could be situated in the number plate lamp holders) which would (I believe) render them unreadable to most cameras. I do not know if ANPR cameras have IR filters, I suspect not from seeing stock footage.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

        Re: Oddly

        Careful...I believe it may be an offence to deliberately obscure your licence plate.

  21. Sirius Lee

    Being too literal?

    The thrust of many comments on here is about the police using a specific record to convict someone of some crime. Perhaps such use is inappropriate. However, it does take much thought to see how it can be used in other ways.

    Suppose likely lad claims he was in Penzance when a crime in which he is a suspect was committed in John O'Groats. If the database includes a series of records showing likely lad's car on the M1 then in Edinburgh and then Aberdeen on the day of the crime, the police have grounds to ask why his car was going in the direction of the crime. Of course, the lad may rock solid alibi or implicate someone else and it may be correct. But then the police are then able to question that person who may be in a position to show how they could not have been driving the car.

    The data does not need to be presented in court, it can instead be used as a tool to help eliminate implausible defences or confirm genuine ones.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Big Brother

      @Sirius Lee - Re: Being too literal?

      This is not about "the police using a specific record to convict someone of some crime", it is about *everyone* being considered a potential suspect and paedophile/ terrorist/ drug dealer (Oh my!) such that we must *all* be tracked and our journeys recorded just in case we may do something wrong.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Of course, now we *know* this

    There's all sorts of fun to be had ...

    1) drive past an ANPR camera with a non-existent number plate

    2) as 1 but with a car with a rotating number plate holder (I built one a while back)

    3) with some mates, drive the same plate past cameras simultaneously

    Any of these, incidentally, can be used to question the accuracy of the system, should plod want to introduce their "infallible" ANPR database.

    Of course these are high jinks. A more serious example would be for a Person Of Interest to get into a car, and that car make a "journey" out of London (with attendant tail) whilst chummy boy POI goes into London on foot .....

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Of course, now we *know* this

      "A more serious example would be for a Person Of Interest to get into a car, and that car make a "journey" out of London (with attendant tail) whilst chummy boy POI goes into London on foot ....."

      When the London Congestion Charge was introduced there were a number of incidents of people being sent charge notices for vehicles which were never in London, including, IIRC at least one farmer whose tractor was demonstrably never within a 100 miles of London

      Ne'er do wells will use stolen number cars and/or "fake" number plates and always have done. The slightly cleverer ones will use a fake plate which matches the make/model/colour of the vehicle they are driving and maybe even stop to change cars or plates at points on the journey, especially during the getaway.

      And all these examples are just from watching TV. If I really wanted to commit crime I could probably come up with even better ways of "hiding" in plain sight. Maybe just a strategically placed mud splatter that mysteriously moves every so often might be enough to fool ANPR.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: AC Re: Of course, now we *know* this

      ".....1) drive past an ANPR camera with a non-existent number plate

      2) as 1 but with a car with a rotating number plate holder (I built one a while back)

      3) with some mates, drive the same plate past cameras simultaneously...."

      You may want to consider that all three are offences, plus possibly liable to a charge of interfering with a Police investigation if you are stupid enough to post your intent on a website (oh, which you did....).

      1. Alfie Noakes
        Black Helicopters

        Re: AC Of course, now we *know* this

        ..but he (she) did it anonymously (er, wait a minute!).

        mb

      2. Roo
        Windows

        Re: AC Of course, now we *know* this

        "You may want to consider that all three are offences, plus possibly liable to a charge of interfering with a Police investigation if you are stupid enough to post your intent on a website (oh, which you did....)."

        Ah, thought crime. No harm done, impossible to *prove* that any harm would have resulted, and it just so happens to be first tool that a Pratt Tyrant reaches for when they wish to hurt & criminalize the innocent.

  23. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Happy

    Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

    If I were called upon to mount a legal defence of the ANPR database against claims of "privacy invasion", I would immediately respond that cars do not have any privacy rights. Yes, cars. That's because the ANPR system records the registration plate from a vehicle and stores the number along with the location, date and time. The record sitting in the database does not contain any unique identifying data that ties it to a person. Instead, when an investigatory request is made for the vehicular movements of a person, the coppers go to the DVLA database to get all the registration numbers associated with a particular suspect, then search the ANPR database for instances of those numbers. So, no person's data included means no privacy invasion and no rights trampled. Enjoy!

    1. Roo

      Re: Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

      "If I were called upon to mount a legal defence of the ANPR database against claims of "privacy invasion""

      That would be best possible thing you could ever do with your time. You should do it immediately.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Poo Re: Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

        Seeing as - yet again - you have failed to post any actual argument, I would suggest your time would be best spent trying to graduate kindergarten.

        1. Roo
          Windows

          Re: Poo Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

          "Seeing as - yet again - you have failed to post any actual argument,"

          I was hoping to encourage you to defend something that you feel so passionately about, posting an argument would have been superfluous.

    2. Graham Marsden
      Meh

      Re: Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

      "And it's Bryant, he's got the ball, he shoots... he moves the goalposts... HE SCORES!! And the crowd goes... meh."

      Let's see what is *actually* being said:

      There is no statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database;

      such a move warrants a specific statutory basis and "clear mechanisms for accountability and governance". Privacy, data protection and human rights concerns must also be properly addressed,

      No justification has ever been made for the change in the use of ANPR technology from a tool used to target suspected vehicles to the enormous national database

      The lack of statutory oversight highlighted [...] should be urgently addressed [...] drivers are none the wiser as to what is happening to their data

      the public must be made aware of how advancements in technology can alter the way they are monitored. There needs to be consultation and debate on matters that can severely impact on an individual’s right to privacy

      So, whilst privacy is mentioned in there, it's only one *small* part of the overall picture and to claim that it's ok because the data on registration numbers themselves is not "personal" information is disingenuous at best and laughable at worst.

    3. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

      Re: Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

      In this particular instance I can confirm that MB is correct. ANPR do not identify the drivers and when an offence is detected by an ANPR (and the paperwork issued to the registered owner) you may have noticed that one of the valid defences is to claim that someone other than the named driver was operating the vehicle at the time of the offence, or that the vehicle doesn't actually belong to you (Stolen, sold, hired etc.).

      This shows clearly that the ANPR database doesn't have a way of identifying the actual, physical driver and indeed even when linked to the DVLA database the information is not entirely complete.

      1. Graham Marsden

        @Bernard M.Orwell - Re: Just to annoy the tin-foil attired!

        Yes, Matt is correct in *one* small detail, but, as I pointed out, that's only a tiny part of this. (Of course that won't stop him declaring victory...)

        > one of the valid defences is to claim that someone other than the named driver was operating the vehicle at the time of the offence

        It is not enough to *claim* that someone else was operating the vehicle, you have to *name* them as the law requires that you to know who is driving your vehicle at all times and fibbing about this tends to get you into trouble as a certain ex-MP found out...

  24. e^iπ+1=0

    ANPR fixed camera locations

    Is there some kind of satnav add-on that avoids fixed anpr?

  25. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    RTFR

    For those that obviously didn't bother to read Tony Porter's report (including, it would seem, the article's author):

    On page 11 - "....The use of ANPR in this way has proved to be important in the detection of many offences, including locating stolen vehicles, tackling uninsured vehicle use, solving cases of terrorism and major and organised crime. It also allows officers’ attention to be drawn to offending vehicles whilst allowing law abiding drivers to go about their business unhindered....." Oh dear, it seems he is not only very supportive of ANPR use but also of the database! It also seems to have been effective in all the uses cases denied earlier in the thread.

    There's also another quote that completely destroys the paranoia about the system being abused at will - "....There are clear rules to control access to ANPR data to ensure that access is for legitimate investigation purposes. Members of staff only have access to ANPR data if it is relevant to their role and the majority of those who have permission may only do so for a maximum period of 90 days from the date it was collected. Some staff are authorised to access data for up to two years subject to authorisation of a senior officer....."

    Read the report and try and form your own opinion.

    1. Roo
      Windows

      Re: RTFR

      "Oh dear, it seems he is not only very supportive of ANPR use but also of the database!"

      Asserting it is so doesn't make it so. Is that why you used the word "seems" ?

      "It also seems to have been effective in all the uses cases denied earlier in the thread."

      It also seems to have been just as effective at triggering fatal accidents via false positives, and giving an unaccountable bunch of folks even greater advantage over the plebs without adequate oversight to go with it.

      ANPR should not need a veil of secrecy. All it should be doing is collecting observations of vehicles in public spaces and presenting that information to a finite (but small) set of people entitled to query the data. This isn't cloak & dagger stuff, if the system is genuinely useful, well run, and beneficial to the public they would flourish under public scrutiny, so why are they skulking in the shadows ?

    2. Graham Marsden

      Re: RTFR

      > Read the report and try and form your own opinion.

      Certainly, Matt. And my first opinion is (unsurprisingly) that you've cherry-picked quotes that support your position whilst missing out other, very relevant, sections.

      For instance:

      There is a further related issue – the level of vetting required for control room operators to access police Airwave or the ANPR system. It is currently, rightly, the decision of the Chief Constable on whether or not to give access to the Local Authority control room. This is important and my concern is the lack of consistency and the absence of a recommended standard. This is something I have raised with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) via the ANPR and CCTV policing leads.

      And also:

      It is now possible for UK police forces to interrogate in excess of 11 billion records per year lodged on the system. The main ways that the data can be exploited through data mining are outlined as:

      • vehicle tracking: real time and retrospective;

      • vehicle matching: identifying all vehicles that have taken a particular route during a particular time frame;

      • geographical matching: identifying all vehicles present in a particular place at a particular time;

      • network analysis: by identifying the drivers of vehicles and their network of associates, ANPR can be used to indicate vehicles that may be travelling in convoy;

      Now whilst, of course, someone like you would argue that this is a good thing for finding paedophiles and drug dealers and terrorists, someone who has a slightly broader perspective would realise that this also contains a risk of abuse since it could be used to identify anyone whose vehicle was in the vicinity of an event which was not officially approved by the State.

      In 2015 the Home Office has committed approximately £5 million to support the development of the National ANPR Service which includes cloud based storage.

      Hmm, cloud based storage? I wonder if any of that is based in the USA or owned by US corporations who are, of course, required to hand over any and all such information to their Security Services on demand (and not tell anyone they've done so...)

      And in the section titled "Legitimacy of ANPR system use by police" where the author of El Reg's gets the quote about the lack of "statutory authority for the creation of the national ANPR database, its creation was never agreed by parliament, and no report on its operation has even been laid before parliament" (so, clearly, Kat Hall *has* RTFR) it also says:

      These issues fall into sharper focus given the desire within some quarters in the police to extend retention periods from the currently agreed two year period to a maximum of seven years. I have referred these concerns over the legality of ANPR to the Home Office.

      (Perish the thought that the Home Office would disagree or retroactively change the rules...)

      Then in the section "Compliance with Guiding Principles within the Surveillance Code of Practice" the report's author says:

      I have openly called for greater transparency from the police relating to the numbers of ANPR cameras deployed and any evidence relating to their efficiency and effectiveness to also be published. It is not acceptable to have to rely on submitting Freedom of Information requests. Police forces should be willing to publish this information on websites and engage in debates around its usage.

      So I think my opinion is that the report's author isn't quite as "supportive" of ANPR and the database it generates as you assert...

  26. TheWeenie

    I look forward to registering my new number plate - A123 BCD ''' DROP TABLE *

  27. Roger Mew

    You will all report to the monitoring fitment station to have installed in your head a chip, every time you pass within 20 ft of a recorder, all information of your life will be downloaded from the last download. if you do anything wrong, a severe head ache will be initiated and you will need to report to the local agency where your crime will be assessed. If your crime is minor, illegal parking etc then you will be guided to the relevant department. criminal acts are automatically recorded and subsequent penalties applied. naughty thoughts will require brain restructuring.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019