SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

I'm fairly certain that they give you a chance to provide the papers rather than just knicking your wheels on the spot

They do. By phone, or by email, or logging into your insurers website, yadda yadda yadda.

And if they do, unfortunately, end up taking your car (because maybe you can't phone *anyone* who can help you get hold of your docs) you get all your money back for the inconvenience (and a ride home from the cops too).

What an absolute shower of foetid twat eh?

It's not like uninsured drivers are traditionally a scourge of Britain specifically - killing, injuring and maiming hundreds, and where personal accidents aren't a problem leaving people with trashed vehicles and property with no redress as they're not insured. You'd think @Job would welcome sensible measures to tackle the estimated 1 in 20 of the UK population who are driving without adequate insurance eh?

 

[Tom]

utter lack of process at the roadside to challenge it

"Officer I can prove I have insurance, let me just call my insurer now".

and that is becoming the norm and the EXACT thing the DPA was supposed to prevent.

The DPA is designed to safeguard personal data. If that data is incorrect, the DPA allows you to ensure that it is corrected.

That running over our rights

Nobody in the UK has a right to drive a car. Licence holders have permission, nothing more.

What happens when face recog mistakenly marks you as a terrorist or an IP address has you accessing child porn

The first will never happen, the second will probably happen in your case though, given your comments on how all men fancy young girls.

 

[Scouse]

The first will never happen

I think the first already happens, but unless you're unlucky as Jean Charlez de Menizes you're unlikely to get shot eleven times in the head on a train.

You are likely to get barred entrance to Blighty tho - as redress will only be available to UK citizens.

 

[Tom]

Facial recognition technology might flag your presence to the authorities, but it will be those authorities who decide what to do with that information, not the technology.

 

[Tom]

Someone buy me this please k thx

LOTUS TT Racing Cycle - Lotus 110 full carbon Road / TT Bike in A1 order | eBay

 

[Scouse]

Facial recognition technology might flag your presence to the authorities, but it will be those authorities who decide what to do with that information, not the technology.

Mostly disagree. Yes, a a ruleset is developed based on a set of circumstances but then it'll be automated and the rules will be carried out by people who are effectively jobsworths as they have no say in the procedure. Facial recognition tec could easily (and will) profile somone, and match "terrorist" or "not terrorist". Plod (or immigration) will get an instruction to act (quickly - as we demand it) based on that - which is dangerous as all of these tecs aren't perfect, but are treated as such (as they have to be).

A UK citizen will most likely be arrested (and have the chance to prove themselves not who they were mistakenly flagged to be) but a foreign national may not automatically get that courtesy (presuming we've not already extraordinarily rendered them to a black-site torture-prison for the yanks already).

I was supportive of @Jobs initial claim about databases being a threat to our liberty - in reality they very much are and have been for quite some time - but the nonsense about insurance checks is just him being a twat.

 

[Scouse]

LOTUS TT Racing Cycle - Lotus 110 full carbon Road / TT Bike in A1 order | eBay

You won't be able to ride that in a side wind of above 5mph.

 

[Job]

Do you actually read my replies.
If its 2am..you are fucked without a copy of the docs.
Yes you can get it all worked out,.but thats AFTER they presume your guilt at the roadside and confiscate your car.
Its NOT about uninsured drivers..its ABOUT guilty by database.
I reply to every post with that and still you all go off on a rant about unisured drivers and that they probably are guilty.
Which makes my concerns so valid in a world in which people like you are making the decisions.

 

[Scouse]

Do you actually read my replies.

I did - and I responded to exactly your points above, twice. It IS about uninsured drivers - considering there are a shitload of them on UK roads. But regardless of that I asked a direct question in response, twice. Which I'll repost now:

Should we A) worry about potentially mildly inconveniencing a vanishingly small amount of people, who have quick and easy access to redress, or B) should we worry about the common problem of uninsured, un-MOT'd criminals who kill about 200 people a year.

You can't deal with B) without a tiny amount of A).

Which is it? A or B?

Well. Which is it?

 

[Job]

It has nothing..to..do..with..uninsured..drivers...that..was..merely..an..example.

Databases held by tge Police..its their database, they are using them to accuse you of crimes..its not evidence, its not witness statements or crime scene footage.
Its your name with yes/no against it and it should not be YOUR responsibility to prove its wrong..it IS theirs to prove it is right.

 

[Scouse]

In Merseyside about 10% of drivers are uninsured. Not the worst in the UK but pretty bad. One in ten? Evidence suggests that it's very much about catching uninsured drivers. Even going in blind the cops are quite likely to find uninsured drivers. Frankly, I think it's worth them going door-to-door and checking insurance documents. If people don't have them and there's no valid SORN for their car being off the road then it's worth giving them 7 days to get insured/SORNed - or their car gets sold, with no redress.

Here's the figures:


So, a tiny tiny percentage of people *may* get mildly inconvenienced if they get stopped late at night and can't phone their insurance PLUS they're dumb enough to forget their password to their insurer's website and can't logon via their phone.

But there's a fuckload of criminal cunts out there without insurance. And your complaint is that we shouldn't crack down hard on this because a tiny handful of people may be without their car until 9am when their insurance company opens.


Edit: Answer the fucking question @Job.

 

[Scouse]

It has nothing..to..do..with..uninsured..drivers...that..was..merely..an..example.

OK. In the case of that example - uninsured drivers - is the use of database evidence to prevent the scourge of uninsured drivers reasonable, if the worst-case downside to the law abiding citizen is that they may be without their car for a few hours?

Answer the fucking question @Job.



Edit: If you answer this question clearly (I gave you an "A or B" ffs) I'll answer your wider point about databases. Again.

 

[Tom]

Databases held by tge Police..its their database,

The motor insurance database is neither held nor maintained by the police.

 

[Job]

OK its the indurance companies who have a legal duty to update the database..if you are stopped and have your vehicle seized, then you go to them for compensation if it is their mistake.

So a semi independent body holds a database that can make you guilty of a crime if it is incorrect...not accused..you are GUILTY there and then..car seized..walking home.
If as Im pointing out..that isnt a trend to be concerned of for the future..I dont know what is.
Obviously most coppers will try to sort it out..but thats it, your guilt is assumed by database and efforts will be used to prove your innocence.
Which IS the exact opposite of the legal process.

 

[Scouse]

Answer the fucking question @Job

Come on. It's not a hard question.

 

[Job]

1984 or Madmax.
Difficult really, Im guessing 1984 will win.
Never sell freedom for security is the famous quote, its all going to be a bit moot once we go driverless..who has to be insured...the car..you..or the software engineer.

 

[Scouse]

Answer the question @Job.


And start paying for your insurance.

 

[Raven]

The owner of the vehicles will hold the insurance. So, Uber, probably.

 

[Raven]

Butcher was doing sausage meat on special.

Home made scotch eggs for supper and lunch tomorrow!

 

[Job]

Its simple..we need a legal framework that is lacking on databases..they have replaced huge areas of law in a stroke.
Then you can implement them fairly without using them to undermine the very fundamentals of UK law.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Scouse]

Stop waffling and answer the fucking actual question @Job.

 

[caLLous]

How the KRACK attack destroys nearly all Wi-Fi security

 

[Moriath]

Apart from andriod they have got to be real close or on the network to do it from what i read. Andriod they can zero the encryption key tho.

 

[Access Denied]

Also, the police will never leave someone they consider to be, in any way vulnerable, alone on the roadside in the middle of the night. Job is once again talking absolute bollocks.

Edit: Also, if you're nice to the police and you're not actually insured (Say it ran out a few days previously for example) they might be nice and give you a chance to insure it by phone and drive away.

 

[Tom]

I bet Job is a freeman of the land.

 

[Job]

Stop waffling and answer the fucking actual question @Job.

You cant have it both!ways Scouse, you agree of the dangers of databases, then argue that they are OK to be used as judge and jury because people drive uninsured..which is the exact kind of argument that will be used in every step to hell.
You are contraducting yourself and trying to evade this conflict by making me make some arbitary decision on wether its a good or bad thing.
Im obviously arguing its a bad thing...not uninsured drivers..thats irrelevant..do we whittle away at rights to improve convictions?
No..we shouldnt.

 

[Scouse]

You're such a retard @Job. Nobody is acting as judge or jury. You don't get taken to court - it's a simple procedural check. If you have insurance then you're fine. Part of owning a car is that it's *your* responsibility to prove that - and if you can't do that at the roadside (which the polite copper will let you do) then a few hours later you get to prove it anyway.

If you don't have insurance THEN you go to court. THEN a judge and jury is convened. THEN legal proceedings have started. But document processing is just a procedure - one you agreed to when you bought a car and got your drivers licence.

Worst case the procedure may take several hours whilst you prove you are driving legally. During that time you are not deprived of your freedom or liberty, nor do you see a judge or jury. Worst-case you lose access to your car until the morning. Big deal - you signed up to that when you got a car - and it rarely happens anyway.

I'm prepared to address the wider ramifications of databases (again) when you fucking answer my simple question:

"In the case of that example - uninsured drivers - is the use of database evidence to prevent the scourge of uninsured drivers reasonable, if the worst-case downside to the law abiding citizen is that they may be without their car for a few hours?"

Well then. Yes or no?

No other words. Yes or no.

 

[Job]

It IS judge and jury..in the absence of contradictory evidence, the database is accepted as fact of your guilt and your car will be seized.
You keep rabbiting on about what happens afterwards.
It is a very dangerous precedent because losing your car for a few days is not the end of the world, but as you know, this approach could have far more serious consequences in the future, when the crime a database 'proves' you to be guilty of is far more serious.
You are all showing the exact same acceptance of mission creep from these changes to our rights that let the authorities slowly make a world where the computer says no is the final say.

 

[Scouse]

It's not judge or jury. It's simple procedure. Your car may be taken temporarily until facts can be established. As per the rules of the licence you were given.

Databases make things easier - as you don't have to wait weeks to get your car back when you can't fulfil YOUR responsibility to prove you're insured.

After that, if you're not insured THEN you go to court.

Do you also think the police shouldn't arrest suspected criminals and put them in the cells overnight in case they are not guilty? That's depriving people of their liberty, without a judge!!!


Now, answer the fucking question you idiot cunt.