devils_ad69

Came across this and thought it worthy of reproduction here:

If anyone is attacking movement tracking you might want to consider the following. I know what I am talking about because I understand the technology and its possibilities.

The big question here is:

Why would anyone seriously consider using GPS to charge car users for road time and space?

It is very "doable" but to do it properly requires a huge investment in technology and bureaucracy. Its revenues would scarcely cover its costs.

If you see the proposed location for this system is Cheltenham you really need to worry. That is where GCHQ is and where the Met Office is moving to.

Why? Because they both use Cray super computers. The data volumes to do this probably needs a Cray.

If you want to charge people for using their car and you want them to pay more for using it in congested areas, all you have to do is increase tax on fuel. It is not as scientifically perfect or fair as a realtime tracker - but in terms of administration and effectiveness it would do the job very well.

The fact is there are other motives behind tracking and this idea is being "tried out" on the back of congestion charging.

1. It satisfies a desire amongst academics and civil servants to know what people are doing.

2. Once you know where people (and their cars) are there are lots more things you can do to monitor and control people all of which sound perfectly reasonable in isolation. For example (in ascending order of significance) :

i) As your boss I will know when you arrived at that business call and when you left.

ii) As the tax man I will get a listing of your business trips which I can compare with your expense claims.

iii) As a parent I will know where my teenage children are in the car (and where they are parked up at 1:00 am in the morning !).

iv) As your partner I will know where you were rather than where you said you were.

v) As a Police investigator I will get a list of all cars near the scene of an incident in terms of time and space and God help anyone who is on the wrong end of a false correlation of that kind.

vi) As an Intelligence officer I can maintain constant surveillance of you. You don't have to be a terrorist to qualify for this treatment. I might just decide that you are a member of a group who cause me problems and I would like to store up a file of information that I can use to embarrass you at some point. Wait until I find out that you attend alcoholics annonymous or a clinic for sexual diseases.

vii) As a Justice official I could use this much more powerful technology to introduce a new regime of tagging penalties and restrictions. For example, I could use detection systems to bar your entry when you pass a scanner in a Pub doorway or football ground. In fact I can even keep a record of who you
get close to so I can ban you from meeting certain people. Sound quite handy for restraintorders..? Let's see what you think when I give you a three year ban from using a stretch of road where I caught you speeding..... like the M25 for instance.

Using a national network of base stations to track the movements of cars is one step away from tracking people. We are careering towards the day when everyone has their own unique IP address which we can use to trace where and when you are all the time. This is something you can embed in an ID card. The chip can even be inserted under your skin. If you have a Dog you might
already have an identity chip that is embedded in its neck.

I know it all sounds daft but there are people who would use this technology in this way.

These possibilities are very attractive to senior civil servants in
Whitehall, and maybe society wants this. There are strong arguments in favour of portable security and medical data but we need a proper debate.

It is more than a little disingenuous to propose a system for congestion charging that has so many other implications.

As for David Begg he just looks like this weeks Patsy. He is the academic who is selling the idea through the back door without even realising it. He probably understands that it is unworkable for congestion charging, but he is attracted by the opportunity for academic back slapping and status building. To him it is intellectual, exciting new and fun. It will get him
lots of Radio and TV, invites to International conferences, research funding and praise from the Politically Correct classes.

But, if this ever gets anywhere it is not about congestion charging. It is about something else.

Neil Smalley

I do tend to agree.

However, all you need to do is put a lead box over the transmitter when you go out and take it off when you get back home.

GPS needs line of sight to work. I.e Needs a view of the sky. So having your car in a garage will block the signal. Therefore as far as the tracking system is concerned you'll still be parked in the garage.

More importantly is what the Govt could do with all the data from the traffic master network?

devils_ad69

Neil,

But won't they simply legislate so that it would be an offence to not send a signal?

Neil Smalley

But if it's in a location where you can't send a signal, then how will they know?
E.g
If your garage blocks the signal then how are they going to find out? Make garage's illegal? What about if your local multi-story blocks the signal etc etc.

What happens to cars that are imported, who pays for the GPS to be fitted? etc etc.

Buy shares in lead lined boxes now...

Jolly Green Monster 2

You cannot ban people from putting there car in the garage...

and I can confirm as said above that GPS signal does not work through the garage roof...

I think it is scarey and that more people will be thinking "don;t be silly they won't do that" and then suprized in a few years time when they have...

When is the next election? I cannot think of a government that has done as many things that I haven't like before ever.

Elvis Presley

Big brother blah blah blah....

I'm sure the system would have it's pros and cons. If it cuts crime dramatically and it properly legislated, then perhaps it wouldn't be that bad. (My VD clinic keeps records of my visits anyway - couldn't the government just access their files?)

I'm more worried about the increasing cost of motoring!

DavidRB

If people felt this power would be used for good, then they probably wouldn't mind. The problem is trust and the perception from many people these days is that the govt is more interested in tracking the majority of law-abiding citizens rather than the minority of law-breaking ones.

There is so much monitoring going on already that it probably doesn't make that much difference. Each time you use your mobile phone, they know where you are and who you are calling. Every time you use your debit/credit card, they know where you are and can build up a personality profile of you based on your spending patterns. Why do you think companies like store cards, or giving away free prizes in return for your name, address and answers to some questions?

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

cletterridge

I reckon there is a way round this which could go a long way to alleiving the fears of human rights campaigners, but it would be significantly more expensive and perhaps harder to enforce/update than the one already proposed.

Essentially, every device fitted to the car should be a stand-alone satellite navigation system (many people may even want one of these fitted, so may not begrudge its intervention so much). It must have an area of re-writeable memory that can be uploaded from time to time (at each new budget I suppose) via the mobile networks (3G presumably, though not neccessarily) of all the charging maps for every road the driver can go on. When passing down a road that is charged, the device itself tots up the charges and not any central authority of dubious intention.

Independent bodies then check to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the only data capable of being transmitted by these devices to any kind of central computing area is the amount of money that person owes at the end of every month.

Essentially, the computing power and hence surveillance potential is removed from the central agency and returned to the car owner.

Sounds far fetched? So was the playstation II five years ago. If mass produced, I can't see these things costing more than £150 eventually, and once it reaches that price, it could easily replace the equally priced (but useless) piece of paper you currently put in your windscreen.

Chris.Palmer

We all know it?s too expensive & completely impractical.

This is just another sad attempt by a completely inept Government & Transport Department to try and deflect attention away from their internal back-stabbing & complete incompetance.

The simple fact is that they are incapable of finding a sensible solution to this countries transportation problem.

For them, its now just a case of damage limitation before the next election, they just hope that we have all forget how useless they have been & they get to keep their jobs.

Meanwhile, the country goes down the pan, through lack of investment & poorer service & yet the amount we are taxed continues to go up!

They all make me mad [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

WRX SEE

Cletterridge,

That is exactly the technology that Holland is proposing to use for a similar scheme to be launched in a year's time.

Technologically not too difficult. Of course the key to the whole scheme is the resilience of the in-car device against tampering.

Mo

I believe the proposed congestion charges within London are directly related to the London Underground PPP.

speedking

London Underground PPP. Will that make the trains much faster

Assuming that the devices are govt. sponsored that would negate the requirement for a tracker, saving me a lot of money per year. And there would be no warranty issues.

IWatkins

Well, whoever wrote that is talking cack.

The Met Office is not moving to Cheltenham, I should know, I work for them. They are moving to Exeter.

Oh, and the Met Office doesn't have *a* Cray, it has several.



Cheers

Ian

boomer

I too am worried about the "Real Reason", as it goes much further than the proposed system.

Firstly, GPS is one way - i.e. you can tell where you are, but nobody else (via GPS) can determine this information. Yes it can be stored and accessed later (like the crumb trails on hand-held GPS receievers), and using some other technology it can be broadcast (GSM, GPRS or 3G for example) but that would be one hell of a lot of data from 20-odd million cars.

But maybe the government are testing the water, and will suddenly decide to use all those trafficmaster cameras as passive data gatherers instead (overruling the current regulations on their use as to only keeping summary data). After all, it won't cost the drivers anything and they might even reduce their road tax as an incentive (not forgetting that they raised it recently anyway )

Yes, currently mobile phones can be tracked, and your credit/debit card history checked - but these are optional!! You can still use a public phone box, or pay in cash if you wish to remain anonymous.

However, being anonymous is not something the government like - roll on compulsory ID cards.

If you have nothing to hide, what is the worry - they will say.

If they have nothing to hide, then maybe we should have free access to their "strategic plannign meetings"?

Don't forget, the government and civil service are our servants, paid through our taxes. We should be calling the shots - not them!!!

mb