Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Transport

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Angels to watch over us? Hexacopter Dawn!

By johnboy - 22 September 2011 24

The Liberals’ Alistair Coe has is alarmed by the fruit of his FOI cultivation into point to point cameras.

Information obtained by ACT Shadow Transport Services Minister, Alistair Coe, shows the governments point-to-point speed cameras can be used for car tracking by unmanned aerial vehicles or ‘drones’.

“This shocking revelation from an Australian Federal Police Representative on the Point-to-Point Camera Steering Committee shows the cameras could be used for drones to follow ‘vehicles of interest’ until police interception could be performed,” Mr Coe said.

    ‘….a specific benefit would derive if the P2P cameras were linked to UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)
    which could track vehicles of interest until police interception could be safely performed.'(AFP
    Representative, Point-to-Point Camera Steering Committee, 18 June 2010).

“The representative also said the cameras could be used to detect other vehicles of interest:

    ‘…The use of the P2P cameras to detect unregistered, stolen and other vehicles of interest would
    provide ongoing and longer term benefits of the project.'(AFP Representative, Point-to-Point Camera
    Steering Committee, 18 June 2010).

“This confirms my concerns about the capacity for point-to-point cameras to be used for mass surveillance, with every single car that passes being tracked in a centralised database.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
24 Responses to
Angels to watch over us? Hexacopter Dawn!
1
zippyzippy 3:11 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Liberal want to curb police powers and community surveillance eh? Good on them.

I hear Alistair is now going to start a campaign against CCTV.

Report this comment

2
Skidbladnir 3:40 pm
22 Sep 11
#

I don’t know why he’s acting like this is some kind of grand revelation of *shifty eyes* Conspiracy, usage as a mass surveillance tool was part of the original Point-to-Point Design Study.

Also, the CPO was openly discussing this in July.

Report this comment

3
Erg0 4:01 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Yes, but now he’s got confirmation that the cameras which capture and store number plates could be used to capture and store number plates in a database.

Report this comment

4
mtrax 6:09 pm
22 Sep 11
#

so what happens to this data anyway even if its not used for pursuits?
is it deleted automatically ?

Report this comment

5
Gerry-Built 6:23 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Can someone explain why mass surveillance is a problem, anyhow? especially to those of us who do our best to follow the law?

Report this comment

6
Henry82 6:52 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Gerry-Built said :

Can someone explain why mass surveillance is a problem, anyhow?

you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Report this comment

7
Skidbladnir 6:58 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Gerry-Built said :

Can someone explain why mass surveillance is a problem, anyhow? especially to those of us who do our best to follow the law?

Assumption 1:
The party seeking or maintaining the information about you has pure motives, intentions, and is totally beyond corruption, now and always.

Assumption 2:
You do not now, nor will you ever do, anything that could ever be construed as suspicious or controversial by anyone who may have access to this information, either directly our through corruptible methods.

Alternately, we all have things we can and should wish to hide. They aren’t criminal or even controversial. These are simply personal and shouldn’t have to be revealed to anyone who you don’t wish to be in-the-know.

This government and the Chief Police Officer disagrees, but believe you should party for such a system. For “safety”.

Report this comment

8
cranky 8:32 pm
22 Sep 11
#

A further comment made in the CT article, & not noted above, was;

‘Another meeting attendee said revenue projections showed that the cost of installing the system should be paid back within six to 12 months.’
‘He noted that P2P systems had relatively low infringement rates, and there may be scope to reduce the tolerance level to increase infringement numbers’.

So we have confirmed that pub servs are spending their time dreaming up the most revenue generating methods that can be applied. Not a mention of any road safety benefits!!

I’m fairly sure I didn’t miss any anouncement by local Labor that they would be introducing this scheme prior to the last election. Can they honestly claim a mandate for this scheme? Are we such sheep that we go along with every vehicle on a particular road being recorded because we ‘may’ break some (deliberately low) speed limit? Are we all such bogans that we may have committed a crime, stolen a car, driving unregistered/uninsured, escaping Police, or simply having it away with the monitoring officer’s missus?

I don’t believe Govco has our permission to enact these draconian surveillance methods.

Report this comment

9
Skidbladnir 8:54 pm
22 Sep 11
#

RE: Cost Projections.
Read the design studies.
Note the cost increases under different stakeholder expectation and flexibility retirements are modelled.
Some are more feasible and politically acceptable than others.

PS: Skidbladnir did not write or have input on the Design Study. He has read it and some other choice related documents cover-to-cover, however…

Report this comment

10
Lookout Smithers 9:13 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Gerry-Built said :

Can someone explain why mass surveillance is a problem, anyhow? especially to those of us who do our best to follow the law?

It isn’t a problem. It happens to us all the time, albeit illegal. It is an old tactic which won’t help the average law enforcer. Following the law has nothing to do with it, you don’t have to be a law breaker to be done over by it. Ask any of the exonerated.

Report this comment

11
cranky 9:14 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Hey Skid,

Has ANY thought been given to road safety?

Report this comment

12
Aeek 9:48 pm
22 Sep 11
#

One of my reasons for driving over Hindmarsh Hill can be done by bicycle, needs to be a fixie which makes it tough, braked because that’s road legal.I could consider this motivation.

Report this comment

13
RedDogInCan 10:15 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Gerry-Built said :

Can someone explain why mass surveillance is a problem, anyhow? especially to those of us who do our best to follow the law?

Because doing your best won’t be good enough. Automated camera systems don’t have the discretion to let unintended and inconsequential breaches of the law slide. You now face being fined for a moments inattention rather than an intentional act. You risk being considered a criminal just because you are human.

Report this comment

14
yellowsnow 10:55 pm
22 Sep 11
#

Henry82 said :

Gerry-Built said :

Can someone explain why mass surveillance is a problem, anyhow?

you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

a little bit of surveillance here and there is not a problem, but when things get to the point that everyone’s movements can be tracked accurately and kept for posterity in databases, that’s pretty scary. Especially if private companies or less scrupulous people get access to the data (incl through hacking) for whatever reason. Also, we may have relatively benign (if incompetent) governments now, but who’s to say what kind of govts will be in power in 20 years time and how they might use or abuse the surveillance data. Imagine if a future government, following the war on drugs and war on terror, instituted a war on speeding, or a war on emitting carbon dioxide, and retrospectively pursued all transgressors through the databases, meting out horrible punishments (for instance suspects could be shipped to Malaysia or Nauru and tortured there on Australia’s behalf). It could happen!

But on the other hand surveillance is admittedly v handy in combating crime. I guess the question at the end of the day is how much privacy and freedom we want to give up in exchange for protection from crime / punishment of criminals / increased govt revenue from traffic offences

Report this comment

15
Postalgeek 7:31 am
23 Sep 11
#

Outrageous. First police want to indulge in futile and dangerous high speed pursuits, and when the public gets all bolshie about it they try to pull a swifty and track the vehicles electronically, invading everyone’s right to privacy on a public road and remain unharassed by law enforcement. As a car thief I’d be ropeable.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site