Dublin DCC cameras will soon double up as "congestion charge" monitoring devices.

Run_to_da_hills

Many of those DCC cameras across Dublin which are intended to assist in urban traffic flow will soon double up as monitors for this proposed fourtcoming global green tax or what will be locally known as a "congestion charge". Strategecly placed at almost every main intersection across the city, at toll plasas and close to the port tunnel these "Big Brother" cameras have the ability to pan tilt and zoom right down on every vehicle registration entering the city.

These cameras are also placed high up that they are almost impossible to tampered with. If you not conform to this preposed form of "Euro green tax" you can be expected to get a nasty summonse in the post just like a speed camera notification. When this "congestion charge" was introduced In London they were told that they would only operate during week days however they run 24/7 365 you can expect the same here. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) can be used on existing CCTV networks.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Number_Plate_Recognition

humanji

And just to note, it works very well in London. It's improved the city congestion by an incredible amount.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of those DCC cameras across Dublin which are intended to assist in urban traffic flow will soon double up as monitors for this proposed fourtcoming global green tax or what will be locally known as a "congestion charge".

What's a "forthcoming global green tax" when its at home?

Also...you seem to be suggesting that there isn't actually a congestion problem in Dublin which needs to be tackling, and that there is some ulterior motive (neither congestion- nor ecologically- based).

These cameras are also placed high up that they are almost impossible to tampered with.

You make it sound like you have an issue with this - that you think they should be where people can tamper with them.....

If you not conform to this preposed form of "Euro green tax" you can be expected to get a nasty summonse in the post just like a speed camera notification.

Similarly, if you don't conform to the already-established forms of "Euro drink-driving tax" or "Euro speeding tax", or indeed the "Euro taxing-your-car tax" or "Euro insuring-your-car tax", you can also expect to get a nast summons in the post.

How sinister...punishing people who disoobey the law, even when they don't agree with it.

I dunno....only last week we had someone complaining about "pre crime" policing, and now we have a complaint that people aren't allowed cheat or break the system when they disagree with it. What does that leave? Should I only be held accountable for crimes I commit where I agree that the law I broke should be enforced???

There are other ways to deal with the congestion. Instead of cameras, for example, we could fit cars with mandatory GPS transceivers, so they record and broadcast their position. I'm sure that would make the likes of RTDH much happier. Or we could take the French system and simply limit what days certain cars could drive in certain areas....allowing the rich to have 2 number-plates per car and be unaffected, but screwing the common man. Or we could just decide that because we don't believe in Global Warming, there isn't actually a congestion problem in Dublin to be dealt with at all....

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

There are other ways to deal with the congestion. Instead of cameras, for example, we could fit cars with mandatory GPS transceivers, so they record and broadcast their position. I'm sure that would make the likes of RTDH much happier. Or we could take the French system and simply limit what days certain cars could drive in certain areas....allowing the rich to have 2 number-plates per car and be unaffected, but screwing the common man. Or we could just decide that because we don't believe in Global Warming, there isn't actually a congestion problem in Dublin to be dealt with at all....

Most cars will eventually "voluntary" accept these GPS tracking devices in the form of high powered RFID transceivers for accessing the Port Tunnel, west link and all other toll roads that will eventually go barrier free. These will assist the authorities track down any of those that tamper with their number plates with chemical blocking sprays etc.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Most cars will eventually "voluntary" accept these GPS tracking devices in the form of high powered RFID transceivers for accessing the Port Tunnel, west link and all other toll roads that will eventually go barrier free. These will assist the authorities track down any of those that tamper with their number plates with chemical blocking sprays etc.

Hang on isn't tampering with your number plate already a crime?

You've yet to explain the following;

Why is a congestion charge a bad thing?

Why is using cameras to enforce such a charge, a bad thing?

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Most cars will eventually "voluntary" accept these GPS tracking devices in the form of high powered RFID transceivers for accessing the Port Tunnel, west link and all other toll roads that will eventually go barrier free.

By putting quotes around the word voluntary, do you mean that in fact people will be forced into it?

Or are you just using quotes to try and give it some sinister connotation, despite the fact that it will, in fact, be voluntary.

These will assist the authorities track down any of those that tamper with their number plates with chemical blocking sprays etc.

Sure it will....just as soon as they start putting RFID receivers everywhere, and trust that drivers trying to cheat the system won't do anything underhanded like put their RFID-carrying whatever inside a Farraday cage whenever they're not driving on a toll-road.

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

By putting quotes around the word voluntary, do you mean that in fact people will be forced into it? .

Just like smart transit cards such as the "Oyster card" people will be offerd generous discounts for the change over, they will also be penalsied with long cues as more lanes at the toll booth will be designated express barrier free lanes.

bonkey wrote: »

Sure it will....just as soon as they start putting RFID receivers everywhere, and trust that drivers trying to cheat the system won't do anything underhanded like put their RFID-carrying whatever inside a Farraday cage whenever they're not driving on a toll-road.

I will certainly be putting my RFID transceiver in my led lined glove compartment, the only problem is that I may have to take it out on a regular basis as these same devices will be used for monitering my presence at cashless parking metres in hospitals, park n' ride and multi story carparks.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Just like smart transit cards such as the "Oyster card" people will be offerd generous discounts for the change over, they will also be penalsied with long cues as more lanes at the toll booth will be designated express barrier free lanes.

So it is voluntary, and you know its voluntary.....but still felt the need to put the word in quotes to suggest that its something other than voluntary.

Fair enough.

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

So it is voluntary, and you know its voluntary.....but still felt the need to put the word in quotes to suggest that its something other than voluntary.Fair enough.

THe UPC and EAN barcode started off as "voluntary" coinvenience aid for tracking and stock taking trade items in stores. They are now mandatory in the global retail and food industry and will soon will be replaced by RFID technology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZYY85IyDNM

bonkey

Yes, and many other things began life as voluntary and remain voluntary.

So basically, you're trying to suggest something sinister about a technology you know you can defeat and which you want us to believe will be something other than voluntary, even though the only evidence you have for that is that some other stuff in the past has changed from being voluntary to mandatory.

Like I said...fair enough.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Just like smart transit cards such as the "Oyster card" people will be offerd generous discounts for the change over, they will also be penalsied with long cues as more lanes at the toll booth will be designated express barrier free lanes.

I have an Oyster card in my wallet, the only way it differs from my old travel card is, if I lose it, it's a painless process to get it replaced, rather than the long Qs and endless forms to process a missing travelcard.

Serious Rtdh whats your issue?

I will certainly be putting my RFID transceiver in my led lined glove compartment, the only problem is that I may have to take it out on a regular basis as these same devices will be used for monitering my presence at cashless parking metres in hospitals, park n' ride and multi story carparks.

Again Rtdh, you've explained what RDFID is, and the congestion charge doesn, you've yet to explain why you feel it's wrong.

Run_to_da_hills

Diogenes wrote: »

I have an Oyster card in my wallet, the only way it differs from my old travel card is, if I lose it, it's a painless process to get it replaced, rather than the long Qs and endless forms to process a missing travelcard. Serious Rtdh whats your issue?.

I also have an oyster card since 2005, I had great difficulty registering it because I had an address outside of the UK without a post code. The reason it is so easy to replace is that all your details are on record, just like re applying for duplicate ownership cert for a car, its only a matter of downloading the info and printing it out. The Downside of the oyster card is that everey movement you make is tracked along with the tens and thousands of CCTV cameras placed along the LRT system. Jean Charles de Menezes was innocently bumped off because of cock ups over his records from his Oyster card and CCTV footage. His identity was mistaken for that of an Islamic terrorist because of his sallow skin complexion. Thank God they did not have such a sofisticated surveylance system in London during the IRA bombing campaign in the 1980ies there would have been more than just the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 locked up.

Diogenes wrote: »

Again Rtdh, you've explained what RDFID is, and the congestion charge doesn, you've yet to explain why you feel it's wrong.

Both have one thing in common they are tracking devices that pin point all your movements and yes both systems are wrong because they both infringe on your privacy.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Downside of the oyster card is that everey movement you make is tracked

Unless you don't want it to be, in which case, you can easily prevent it.

Both have one thing in common they are tracking devices that pin point all your movements

Except that Oyster Card can at best only track the movement of the card, and even then can only do so when the owner doesn't wish to prevent that.

and yes both systems are wrong because they both infringe on your privacy.

The Oyster Card infringes on your privacy if and only if both of the following are true:

1) You choose to have an Oyster Card
2) You choose to carry the Oyster Card in a manner which allows its RFID-capabilities to work even when you don't need them to (i.e. unshielded).

I'm find it hard to see how its an invasion of privacy when its entirely the user's choice.

Its a bit like saying that its an invasion of my privacy when someone walks into my house, even though I left the door open and put up a sign outside saying "please come in and say hello".

The same will apply to RFID-tracking in cars. You admit it will be voluntary. You admit you can (and will) block the chip when you don't need it to be functioning. And despite all of this, you complain that it will be an invasion of your privacy for you to choose to have one and to choose when it will and will not work.

DMC2005

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Jean Charles de Menezes was innocently bumped off because of cock ups over his records from his Oyster card and CCTV footage.

He used the card to go through the barrier, thats all. How is that a cock up from his oyster card records?????

In relation to the ANPR software, some traffic cameras already run it. How else did you think they work out journey times ?

Diogenes

DMC2005 wrote: »

He used the card to go through the barrier, thats all. How is that a cock up from his oyster card records?????

In relation to the ANPR software, some traffic cameras already run it. How else did you think they work out journey times ?

Yup this is pure cock and bull the police didn't have DeMendez's oyster card records, they actually thought he was a different person, they saw him coming out of the same building as a suspect.

How you could suggest that Irish people would have been wrongly accused of crimes, if the oyster card was in place makes no sense whatsoever.

Run_to_da_hills

DMC2005 wrote: »

Yup this is pure cock and bull the police didn't have DeMendez's oyster card records, they actually thought he was a different person, they saw him coming out of the same building as a suspect.

In relation to the ANPR software, some traffic cameras already run it. How else did you think they work out journey times ?

Thats why it would be so convenient for the corporation to use these same cameras for monitering traffic for congestion charges.

Sorry my mistake on this one, it was his Oyster card that proved the cops wrong because they could prove that he logged in at stockwell. However all the footage of the cctv in Stockwell tube station was coinveniently switched off that morning of the shooting during the height of the London security crisis. However cops are continually using data from Oyster cards to track down the movements of "criminals". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4800490.stm

oscarBravo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

THe UPC and EAN barcode started off as "voluntary" coinvenience aid for tracking and stock taking trade items in stores. They are now mandatory in the global retail and food industry and will soon will be replaced by RFID technology.

UPC and EAN barcodes uniquely identify a product, nothing more. Having spent a fair chunk of my career working with barcodes - printing and tracking - I can attest that they were an enormous time- and money-saving innovation. You can see this in action yourself at any supermarket checkout.

The problem with a barcode is that it only identifies a product; not a specific instance of that product. It would be useful to be able to individually identify a specific instance, for example to monitor stock rotation and sell-by dates.

It's instructive to note that several products already have unique serial numbers encoded in barcode form; many laptops, for example.

The question is: what's the problem with having every tin of beans uniquely identifiable?

humanji

There's those quotation marks again. Are you implying that the police don't track criminals, but instead are tracking joe public and reporting the information to "They"?

STEVO B

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question is: what's the problem with having every tin of beans uniquely identifiable?

What little vision you have OscarBravo.

When the beans are replaced by shepple, who agree to voluntary have an RFID implanted in their arm, thats when the problems starts. Soon after this it will become mandatory and people like myself will have no other choice but to leave the country.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ah, something we can all look forward to.

oscarBravo

STEVO B wrote: »

What little vision you have OscarBravo.

Leaving the ad hominem aside...

STEVO B wrote: »

When the beans are replaced by shepple, who agree to voluntary have an RFID implanted in their arm, thats when the problems starts. Soon after this it will become mandatory and people like myself will have no other choice but to leave the country.

The problem with this conspiracy theorist paranoid fantasy crapola is that it doesn't even make the tiniest hint of a nod towards logic.

If you read the majority of my post which you snipped, you'll notice I distinguished between barcodes that identify products and those that identify individual instances. RFID tags are conceptually similar to the latter, but are easier to read (with caveats).

I don't have a barcode on me that can uniquely identify me, despite the technology having existed for decades. What evidence is there that I'll be forced to carry an embedded RFID chip?

STEVO B

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't have a barcode on me

Yet.

Would you take an RFID chip in the arm? Given that you believe it is so good in tracking beans, surley the government could put it to good use tracking people. Surley this would help when convicting murderers etc.

oscarBravo

STEVO B wrote: »

Yet.

What prompts this, other than paranoia? What evidence is there that there are any plans, by anyone, anywhere, to barcode people?

STEVO B wrote: »

Would you take an RFID chip in the arm?

Of course not. What makes you think I would?

STEVO B wrote: »

Given that you believe it is so good in tracking beans, surley the government could put it to good use tracking people. Surley this would help when convicting murderers etc.

I'm not a murderer. If I was, there might be a case to be made for tracking me - but I don't think an embedded RFID chip is necessarily a good solution for this.

At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a key difference between tins of beans and people: tins of beans don't care whether they're tracked or not.

STEVO B

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a murderer. If I was, there might be a case to be made for tracking me - but I don't think an embedded RFID chip is necessarily a good solution for this.

But if we all get one the police will be able to solve crimes easily. Would you take an RFID chip in the arm (its the size of a grain of rice apparently) and allow the cops to trace your every move, on the basis that it would combat crime? I think most people would see the value in this.

oscarBravo

What part of "no" was unclear?

STEVO B

oscarBravo wrote: »

What part of "no" was unclear?

Well the police can track your every move with your mobile phone anyway. Big Joe from the Naul will tell you all about it.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Sorry my mistake on this one, it was his Oyster card that proved the cops wrong because they could prove that he logged in at stockwell.

I hope you object to this. After all, it was an invasion of his privacy which proved his innocence.

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

I hope you object to this. After all, it was an invasion of his privacy which proved his innocence.

Even if he did jump the style he didn't deserve the death penalty. The CCTV should also have proved his innocence but these were conveniently "switched off", just like all the Dublin city CCTV and CCM cameras will be when the cops are proven wrong in any incident.

humanji

Not all of them. Isn't there footage of him jumping the gate?

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

Not all of them. Isn't there footage of him jumping the gate?

They say he didn't jump the gate, apparently his Oyster card was clocked in at Stockwell. Unless the RFID chip in his Oystercard card was activated from inside his pocket as he was leaping over the barrier. :eek:

humanji

Ah, founf what I was looking for. Here's a video with the security footage. You're right, he walked through. Not sure who I was thinking jumped the barrier. Anyway, the point is, it shows that all the security cameras weren't conveniently "switched off".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_NjcYO6zvoc (about 3:25 into it)

DMC2005

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thats why it would be so convenient for the corporation to use these same cameras for monitering traffic for congestion charges.

Well it might do ... if any of them were in the city center. As far as I know they are all on motorways. But anyway the traffic cams in the city center wouldnt be of any use for a whole host of reasons including :

1) They lack image quality needed
2) There aren't enough of them.
3) To dedicate them to congestion charge enforcement would mean they couldnt be used for traffic monitoing as they would need to be zoomed in to lanes all the time.
4) They are too discreet - people wouldn't know where the congestion charge is

I can't see any motivation to use them as congestion charge cameras. If this charge was introduced, a whole fleet of cameras would pay for themselves within weeks so the cost of the cameras would not be an issue. Anyway they would be looking at purchasing 100+ cameras to enforce the congestion charge. "Doubling up" the existing 10 would mean they only have to buy 90+ ... hardly much of a difference.

So in conclusion..... This is a stupid theory.

Run_to_da_hills

DMC2005 wrote: »

Well it might do ... if any of them were in the city center. As far as I know they are all on motorways. But anyway the traffic cams in the city center wouldnt be of any use for a whole host of reasons including :

1) They lack image quality needed
2) There aren't enough of them.
3) To dedicate them to congestion charge enforcement would mean they couldnt be used for traffic monitoing as they would need to be zoomed in to lanes all the time.
4) They are too discreet - people wouldn't know where the congestion charge is

I can't see any motivation to use them as congestion charge cameras. If this charge was introduced, a whole fleet of cameras would pay for themselves within weeks so the cost of the cameras would not be an issue. Anyway they would be looking at purchasing 100+ cameras to enforce the congestion charge. "Doubling up" the existing 10 would mean they only have to buy 90+ ... hardly much of a difference.

So in conclusion..... This is a stupid theory.

When the congestion charge is up and running there will be less traffic on the inner city road thus most of the inner city DCC cameras will be left idle and their operators who monitor them will be boared so they can count the licence plates of guzzling jeeps and MPVs to pass their time away

I did say some of the DCC cameras will be passed over for this use. By operating a portion of them for ANPR purpses they can move them around so people could not familiar themselves with them to avoid the charge. Dont forget your toll bridge pass will also be compatible with parking meters, the port tunnel and various carparks so people will find it difficult to escape these charges because they will be traced through the city.

Dirty Dave

STEVO B wrote: »

Well the police can track your every move with your mobile phone anyway. Big Joe from the Naul will tell you all about it.

So could Ian Huntley, but you are wrong about the police being able to track your every movement from it.

The closest you can be tracked with your mobile is to the nearest cell you are registering off. Sometimes that can narrow down your location to within a couple of hundred metres at best. Sometimes. Most of the time, it wont be that accurate.

And tracking the movements of a single person takes a shed load of time and effort with a good few people working on it. Thats why its only used to loosely track the movements of people who are under investigation for murder or other serious crimes.

Thats why mobile phone companies cant tell you where your phone is if you lost it - far too much cost and effort involved.

If it was as easy as you seem to think, mobile operators would offer a monthly subscription service for a price to help you locate it.

Fone Finder! TM

Mahatma coat

I worked for a haulage company once and we could track the movements ov every truck on the fleet in real time to within 5 Metres, anywhere in Europe.

twas called Allegro IIRC, and it used mobiles

Dirty Dave

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I worked for a haulage company once and we could track the movements ov every truck on the fleet in real time to within 5 Metres, anywhere in Europe.

twas called Allegro IIRC, and it used mobiles

Specific technology AFAIK - they use GPRS (from a mobile SIM card in the device) to send their signals but the actual devices themselves are what provide the telemetry. Similar I grant you, but telemetry from a mobile wouldnt be that accurate.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Even if he did jump the style he didn't deserve the death penalty.

I think you may have missed my point...

I meant that I hope you object to him being proven innocent because it was done through an invasion of his privacy...which you're completely against.

The CCTV should also have proved his innocence but these were conveniently "switched off",

There you go with those "clever" quotes again. Are you "suggesting" that they weren't switched off?

just like all the Dublin city CCTV and CCM cameras will be when the cops are proven wrong in any incident.

And yet amazingly, despite being able to manipulate such things, they were so stupid that they went and requested the very information in the de Menzies case that would show them to be at fault, and having found said evidence, they went and published it, letting the public know.

These police are fiendishly clever, eh? They set things up so they can't be found at fault...then go and find themselves at fault using the very type of technology you complain will only be used against the common man. How devious.

DMC2005

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

When the congestion charge is up and running there will be less traffic on the inner city road thus most of the inner city DCC cameras will be left idle and their operators who monitor them will be boared

Firstly on congestion charge system would work without using ANPR for at least 90% of cases. Secondly processing of these charges will most likely be handed over to a private operator. DCC will not be reading plates themselves.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I did say some of the DCC cameras will be passed over for this use.

All of them will - the private operatior will install their own.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

By operating a portion of them for ANPR purpses they can move them around so people could not familiar themselves with them to avoid the charge.

Moving them around is a stupid idea. Just put cameras at every road which is an entry point to the congestion charge zone. Whats the advantage in having to move them around all the time? You think it would save money or something?

Run_to_da_hills

DMC2005 wrote: »

Whats the advantage in having to move them around all the time? You think it would save money or something?

If people knew where these cameras were located they would be taking every known rat run around the city to avoid them.

bonkey

...in which case (given that DMC stated they'd be at every road into the charged area) those people would be avoiding the congestion-charge area....which would mean that they would't be anywhere that mobile cameras would be able to charge them for either.

DMC2005

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If people knew where these cameras were located they would be taking every known rat run around the city to avoid them.

There would be cameras are on EVERY road into the congestion charge zone. If there is some small lane somewhere that could be used as a rat run, it gets turned into a cul de sac.

Go see how many ways of avoiding the congestion charge you can find in London by using rat runs....