Hacker News Reader

>There is an onus in the UK for the registered keeper of the vehicle to incriminate themselves or someone else for road traffic offences (confirmed by test cases).

That's not how that works. You, as the registered keeper of a vehicle, have a number of duties relating to the provision of information to the police or other relevant authorities upon request. This isn't a controversial provision, something similar exists in practically every jurisdiction in which cars have a unique identifier.

The s172 process avoids the situation where a speeding fine can be avoided by simply not saying who was driving. 172(4) provides a statutory defence which can be advanced by an individual who's vehicle was cloned:

>A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

And regarding the disclosure issue

> The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.

This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.

However, if you are being prosecuted for failing to nominate, it is more likely that you have completely failed to return the form rather than returning the form with a note saying that your plate appears to have been cloned, in which case access to the ANPR database is irrelevant because you need to explain why you did not bother to furnish the information rather than police not believing that your vehicle had been cloned.

> This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.

"Obliged"?

I immediately thought the case of the Guildford Four, and the scene in the biographical film In The Name Of The Father.

IIRC in the film the note in police files said "not to be shown to the defence"... :/

Disclosure is a very different beast today, fifty years later.

What laws have changed?

>Essentially you have to pay up or prove the cloning (and your innocence) yourself - very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you. The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.

At least in the US prosecutors are obligated to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find, even if they don't plan to use it in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

> At least in the US prosecutors are obligated to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find, even if they don't plan to use it in court.

Once you're at that level of issue, you're already wasting massive amounts of time and money.

I'm sure a traffic camera number plate reader system can be programmed such that evidence of cloned tags was intentionally not captured or saved.

Why? What would be the point of that?

The thread started out with:

> Because of how effective this is for catching even fairly minor violations like failure to pay vehicle tax, number plate cloning is becoming pretty common (comparatively) in the UK.

Evidence of number plate cloning would reduce revenue from fines. If the government wants to fine you for not paying your vehicle tax, evidence that someone cloned your plate would be exculpatory, so it's in the government's best interest to not collect that evidence in the first place.

That's literally not how government works. If they explicitly discarded data because it was exculpatory then not only would they not be able to fine you based on that data, they would have to refund every fine they issued while that discard rule was in place.

The police literally withhold exculpatory evidence all the time, as a matter of business as usual.

I don't, so my sample set is distinctly broader than yours.

What?

It could happen entirely accidentally.

"Oh, we hit for DEADBEEF at 11:00am in London, so ignore hits for DEADBEEF from anywhere else outside some Nx safety factor of the driving distance from that hit, because it has to be a false positive."

or

"Oh, we hit for DEADBEEF at 11:00am in London and again at 11:05am in London. Our cloud costs are high, so we're only going to store the most recent picture DEADBEEF, and only record the violation from 11:00am and 11:05am."

I guess these examples sound kind of contrived to me, but how long do you retain this kinda data for? 30 days? 60 days? A year?

Entirely contrived. The point of the system is that you want all the hits everywhere, if your system is using any discard rules at all then it is unreliable for a prosecution.

You're not thinking like a bureaucracy.

Suppose you have a system of cameras operated by the various localities. The localities are all storing the data. Then there is a central system that can query all the local systems but doesn't itself store any of the data.

The department issuing traffic citations requests an automated daily report showing every vehicle observed at multiple locations where the two sightings imply an average speed between 55MPH and 170MPH. Then the citations department takes the report and issues a citation to anyone where there is no route between those two points that allows the calculated average speed without exceeding the speed limit.

The report isn't automatically generated if the average speed was calculated to be 490MPH because cars don't go that fast so issuing a citation would trivially allow it to be challenged as a data irregularity, and the report is requested by the department issuing speeding citations rather than the one (if any) investigating data irregularities.

Now you get a ticket for doing an average speed of 87MPH along a route where the speed limit never exceeded 55MPH. You claim it's a data irregularity (cloned plate), but that's a possible speed, because the automated report didn't include the impossible speeds.

There may have also been sightings that would have implied an average speed of 490MPH, but that report was never requested so it doesn't exist. The bureaucracy comes up with some excuse for why you can't run your own reports that don't already exist. You could request the raw data and then do the calculations yourself, but then you have to make a thousand requests to each individual locality, which is purposely too much trouble for most people to bother, and even then there is no guarantee that the person who cloned your plate was spotted in a location that would have produced an impossibly high speed.

><The department issuing traffic citations requests an automated daily report showing every vehicle observed at multiple locations where the two sightings imply an average speed between 55MPH and 170MPH. Then the citations department takes the report and issues a citation to anyone where there is no route between those two points that allows the calculated average speed without exceeding the speed limit.

The problem with that is that isn't how average speed cameras work, and where speeds are ludicrously high then there is a human operator looking at it.

So why isn’t the system already working as Gigachad suggested up the thread? Why is cloning plates feasible at all and not immediately discovered and prosecuted? Is this perhaps in the works? Or are the incentives not there?

Because ANPR data isn't routinely monitored. If your car is up to date on tax and insurance it doesn't generate an alert, the presence is recorded and ignored.

People make journeys that are illogical all the time and ANPR misreads are common, so there is no justification for having a system that says "this plate has pinged simultaneously 200 miles apart", because what are you going to with that information?

When you trigger a speed camera, the police send a notice to the registered keeper. They don't search ANPR for other hits, because why would they? They're dealing with the single traffic offence in front of them.

ANPR is an intelligence tool. It is an extremely valuable one, but it isn't definitive and no prosecution would stand alone on ANPR data without other corroborative evidence.

It’s very common that they don’t - and how would you know/prove it existed when it’s hard to even know who to ask?

The "revenue generation" argument works for the US but cannot be imported directly over, because cameras work differently here. The revenue goes into the consolidated fund. Rule changes removed them from revenue-maxing spots and made them bright yellow with advanced signage.

(also, the court case if you take it to court should include the photo showing the car, so cloners have to match the exact model of car from the plates they're cloning)

The decision to site a speed camera (and costs of maintaining the camera) and revenue from the camera end up at very different points in the system. The fixed cameras in my city have been off since 2012, because the local council won't pay for them. The "revenue generation" argument is very much overblown.

> very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you

Is the legal process of discovery not a thing in the UK? Finding evidence that might exonerate you is precisely what that process is for.

Respectfully, this is naive and doesn't consider defacto judicial process. Basically, defendants are getting railroaded unless they have resources to mount a defense, and charges are inflated to incentivize plea bargaining.

Disclosure in the UK (as it’s called) is a bit different from discovery in the states, but serves largely the same function.

I googled a bit to find a decent guide and found one on the HSE’s website: https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/aft...

Unfortunately in real life disclosure is one of the many places that the criminal justice system tends to fail to meet its stated ideals. Disclosure is often served late or improperly on run-of-the-mill cases from what I’ve heard and read. There’s a great book called the Secret Barrister that goes into some detail about the UK’s (or England and Wales more specifically) criminal justice system from quite a critical lens.

A better guide is the Crown Prosecution Service's disclosure manual:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/disclosure-manual

I'm not sure how a system would work that didn't auto issue the absolute maximum number of tickets possible. Random lottery to auto discard tickets? A max quota leading to a lawless time in the late evening?

But if that has parameters they've set to max because they really want that delicious revenue, why not detect cloned plates and charge those people more than the tickets?

> But if that has parameters they've set to max because they really want that delicious revenue, why not detect cloned plates and charge those people more than the tickets?

The plate is registered to the victim whose plate was cloned. The identity of the perpetrator who cloned the plate isn't known, so how do you issue them a citation?

and when this happens, it is proof of an illegitimate regime, not for the people, and as such it becomes morally and ethically justifiable to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING one deem required to demolish it, and bring the responsible parties to justice

We're talking about speed cameras here, not deporting people to illegal prisons in El Salvador.

Or even more basic civil liberties stuff like the use of face recognition against protestors. No, there's always a huge number of people that come out for the right to drive illegally fast instead.

Face recognition is constitutionally allowed in the USA, and the flip side is that protestors, or anyone, can also face-recognize the police, track then with ALPR, etc