Feeds

24x7 vehicle surveillance, and how road pricing helps it along

Transport Minister's mythspeaks...

Securing Web Applications Made Simple and Scalable

Alexander seems to contend that the myths and falsehoods emanate from the Association of British Drivers, the primary backer of the petition. The ABD makes its pitch here, stating that "Britain's drivers will be targeted 24 hours a day 7 days a week by a spy network comprising satellites, ANPR cameras, and roadside tracking devices. Privacy will become a thing of the past."

This does not seem an unreasonable statement of the position, and if you substituted 'monitored' for 'targeted' and deleted 'spy' and the privacy claim, even Transport Ministers might be pushed to say it was anything other than a statement of fact.

Hence the safeguards, and hence the need at this juncture for us to turn to the traditional exception to the safeguards, law enforcement. Police and security services have not, so far as we're aware, emitted a cheep on the subject of road pricing schemes, but ACPO has some well documented plans which are most certainly relevant.

A road pricing system charges for road use, and doesn't directly do any of the other stuff. The data it produces could however be extremely useful to the enforcement arm, the one that's the beneficiary of the safeguards exception, that is busily constructing a national vehicle movement database, and that intends to retain records of all vehicle movements for a full five years. ACPO's March 2005 document, Denying Criminals the Use of the Roads explains in some detail how its national vehicle surveillance system will be built and will operate, and puts forward some fascinating examples of how it will operate in the closely-surveilled future.

The document promotes the police's exploitation of "the full potential of ANPR" and "successor Electronic Vehicle Identification technologies". This will involve the establishment of "a national ANPR camera and reader infrastructure utilising police, local authority, Highways Agency and other partner and commercial sector cameras."

The strategy will include "Working with PITO [Police Information Technology Organisation] and others to ensure vehicle intelligence and ANPR systems are integrated into other key national information management developments and IT infrastructures"; "Working to improve the quality and timeliness of intelligence databases feeding into ANPR systems and develop links to further databases at national and Force levels"; and "Promoting the develop of Electronic Vehicle Identification (EVI) technology. EVI offers the potential of supplementing and enhancing ANPR. EVI will utilise the same back end and business processes as ANPR."

We should note from this first that ACPO sees its current ANPR system as evolving as future technologies come on-stream (it's already evolving a wide range of systems by lobbying for the addition of ANPR functionality and their co-option to the police network), and second that it's mustard-keen on EVI. ACPO has also made this clear in other venues, notably in its contribution to the Transport Committee's Cars of the Future report.

EVI is a key component of road charging, because in order to charge a driver you need to identify a vehicle, and the EVI requirements of a national road pricing scheme are substantial. A 2004 feasibility study into road pricing for the Department of Transport concluded that charging by time, place and distance was becoming more feasible (embarrassingly it cites as evidence the LRUC, cancelled the following year, and the German lorry-charging scheme, which had been subject to huge delays and cost overruns).

In order to implement it, however, it would be necessary to use the GPS capabilities of the EU system, Galileo, and it felt that "the technology needed to implement a national distance-based scheme will need generally to be fitted to vehicles during the manufacturing process, since its complexity and the potential for interference between it and other electronic components, and the need for robustness, would make retrofitment difficult and expensive."

This would require a Vehicle Directive from the EU, but as can be seen here, the EU has been busy on EVI for some time.

Application security programs and practises

More from The Register

next story
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
US judge: YES, cops or feds so can slurp an ENTIRE Gmail account
Crooks don't have folders labelled 'drug records', opines NY beak
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Prevent sensitive data leakage over insecure channels or stolen mobile devices.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.