It's only creepy if it's done on a targeted, individual basis, which it won't be.
As it is - in many countries you legally have no expectation of privacy in a public place, so I have no problem with en-masse ANPR. If the police eventually develops a very dense sensor network that can track every car's movement across every intersection then there would be too much information recorded for me to personally worry about it - and I still believe it would help with crime in general. The usual reactionary bullet-points based around the usual bogey-men of terrorists and child-abduction are weak and I think distract from more meaningful and impactful, but sedate arguments: e.g. it would reduce the need for inherently-dangerous hot pursuits to follow a vehicle as the cameras would do that anyway. Uninsured vehicles could be identified immediately before they get stopped for a broken taillight or involved in a collision. And cynically: APR systems could be used to compute a car's average-speed between points to determine if the car broke the speed limit).
I don't feel mass ANPR is comparable to other bulk-surveillance schemes like Internet snooping, because I believe that we do have an expectation of privacy regarding what goes through our home connections, and acting on Internet surveillance is inherently subjective - whereas ANPR can indicate if a car is known to be stolen or uninsured, that's not something that's open to interpretation.
Conversely, such is prohibited in my State. If it is to be done, it must get judicial approval, be for a limited time, data deleted, and target a specific subject.
I helped the ACLU stuff the envelopes. I consider that some of my best work.
All of History says otherwise. All surveillance mechanisms have been used to individually track dissidents, personal enemies, ex-spouses, etc. What makes this different?
If the police eventually develops a very dense sensor network that can track every car's movement across every intersection then there would be too much information recorded for me to personally worry about it
The availability of large databases (ex. DNA) have been shown to increase the number of innocent people caught in the net, since the probability of false positives increases proportionally and cops start relying on running wide searches over regular investigation techniques.
it would reduce the need for inherently-dangerous hot pursuits to follow a vehicle as the cameras would do that anyway
Only if you have a complete panopticon, with no gaps, which in a wide enough are will be difficult, if not impossible.
it would reduce the need for inherently-dangerous hot pursuits to follow a vehicle as the cameras would do that anyway.
It wouldn't really reduce the need for the infamous hot-pursuits because often in these hot pursuits, the car is stolen so the driver is not who the car is licensed to.
Hot pursuits are not primarily about identifying the driver either - it's about following the car so they know where it is so they can apprehend the driver. With a pursuit there's a panic, a high probability of the car being damaged or destroyed, and possible injury or death for the driver, the police involved, and of course, any pedestrians caught up in the way.
With a large enough ANPR network, there is no need to chase the car - so the driver won't necessarily panic or act irrationally to evade the police - leading to a higher probability of recovering the vehicle in good condition, and a successful non-dramatic apprehension of the suspects as it makes it easier to catch them by surprise, for example.
Right, it's not about identifying the driver, it's about apprehending the driver.
I hope I never live in a society where the driver of a stolen car can expect to be apprehended no matter where he stops because he'll be tracked by a camera network so ubiquitous that he can't escape it.
Because such a ubiquitous network means that all of my travels are being tracked and recorded too - which will likely include facial recognition, so there really will be no escaping Big Brother... and I don't trust any government with so much power and information over citizens to be benign.
It's only creepy if it's done on a targeted, individual basis, which it won't be.
As it is - in many countries you legally have no expectation of privacy in a public place, so I have no problem with en-masse ANPR. If the police eventually develops a very dense sensor network that can track every car's movement across every intersection then there would be too much information recorded for me to personally worry about it - and I still believe it would help with crime in general. The usual reactionary bullet-points based around the usual bogey-men of terrorists and child-abduction are weak and I think distract from more meaningful and impactful, but sedate arguments: e.g. it would reduce the need for inherently-dangerous hot pursuits to follow a vehicle as the cameras would do that anyway. Uninsured vehicles could be identified immediately before they get stopped for a broken taillight or involved in a collision. And cynically: APR systems could be used to compute a car's average-speed between points to determine if the car broke the speed limit).
I don't feel mass ANPR is comparable to other bulk-surveillance schemes like Internet snooping, because I believe that we do have an expectation of privacy regarding what goes through our home connections, and acting on Internet surveillance is inherently subjective - whereas ANPR can indicate if a car is known to be stolen or uninsured, that's not something that's open to interpretation.