I wonder what makes them think that the sites are not known to the criminal element ? I tend to assume that all 'ball camera covers' probably all contain ANPR ... and then there are all the obvious one's ...
Another report of this story from BigBrotherwatch is
here.
There was a recent concept that ANPR might be used for speeding offences (
here) and for this the SpeedSpike system would serve both purposes (
here reported by the Daily Mail Online) (and also by Amberhawk
here) & TwistedPair
here.
It is worrying that we might see a mass increase in 'ANPR' surveillance and records kept of our movements.
Couple this with recent reports that TomTom (Aust) handing out details of trips people have made and then speed cameras installed is just outrageous and a sever severing of trust between TomTom and it's customers.
Steven Mathieson, the news editor at Guardian Government Computing sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in July 2009 asking for the location of the cameras. The police force refused, claiming that revealing where they had been placed would "be likely to prejudice the prevention of crimeā€¯. Mr. Mathieson then appealed to the Information Rights Tribunal, which found in his favour last month and decided on the 35 day limit for disclosure. Their ruling stated:
"The tribunal considers that there was, overall, a weak case made by the additional party (Devon and Cornwall Police) as to why it thought that disclosure of the information sought would be likely to prejudice policing."
"The tribunal considers that in all the circumstances, the public interest falls on the side of disclosure in this case, so as to allow for debate about the strategic use of the cameras and the reasons for their deployment."
Who do they think they are to refuse ?
Also a link
here to an ANPR promotion facility.