|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 15, 2015 6:53:38 GMT
How's that then? i assume you don't mean by paying contact less, as it wouldn't matter how you pay (I.e. What method you used to pay by card). how are people tracking you by the fact you have your card with you? Each card has a code that identifies the owner. The code can be read by security devices placed in many shops. Some of those devices are there to normally read the code off items leaving the shop. That information is used to track stolen items, but to also track the speed of sales of certain items. There are lot of security systems in use that are not known to the public. One is your modern mobile phone! It can be controlled by a third party even if it if switched off. Are we perhaps getting in the area of X-Files here? |
|
|
|
Post by jamescg1972 on Aug 15, 2015 7:43:11 GMT
How's that then? i assume you don't mean by paying contact less, as it wouldn't matter how you pay (I.e. What method you used to pay by card). how are people tracking you by the fact you have your card with you? Each card has a code that identifies the owner. The code can be read by security devices placed in many shops. Some of those devices are there to normally read the code off items leaving the shop. That information is used to track stolen items, but to also track the speed of sales of certain items. There are lot of security systems in use that are not known to the public. One is your modern mobile phone! It can be controlled by a third party even if it if switched off. Is there any documented, reliable evidence that this is the case, or that it is being used in that way (reliable, as is recognised news or academic or such like source)? I understood that the power of the chip in the card is such that it cannot be read if you are further than a few cm away. |
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Aug 15, 2015 7:43:34 GMT
This stuff has been going on for ages. But it is not openly acknowledged.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 15, 2015 8:10:35 GMT
One for instance: I can remotely wipe any of our phones that have been lost or stolen, this is standard technology now. Location data is commonly captured too, so that carefully arranged secret tryst may be found out one day if you deny where you were!
|
|
|
|
Post by jamescg1972 on Aug 15, 2015 14:52:05 GMT
Ive heard people say it goes on, for ages. I've just never seen any actual evidence that it does. I know phones track you and can be wiped remotely etc. I gave Google permission years ago to do so. It's the contactless cards being used to track you "everywhere" that I question.
|
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 15, 2015 17:15:14 GMT
Ive heard people say it goes on, for ages. I've just never seen any actual evidence that it does. I know phones track you and can be wiped remotely etc. I gave Google permission years ago to do so. It's the contactless cards being used to track you "everywhere" that I question. You are quite right to sir, I have dealings with certain Her Majesty's Constabulary and they have no such technology. Now if it is a claim from America, well, we all know they learned a lot from the aliens in Hangar 43 at Roswell don't we?  |
|
|
|
Post by jamescg1972 on Aug 15, 2015 17:31:48 GMT
Now if it is a claim from America, well, we all know they learned a lot from the aliens in Hangar 43 at Roswell don't we? They did. I saw it on this documentary.  |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 15, 2015 21:32:21 GMT
Paranoia. If you live and act out an uninteresting and lawful life (like most of us do), so what! There will be no interest in you other than through cookies to try and attract your custom based on some of the things you may have recently bought or done at the supermarket til or on the internet. Yep we are all easily tracked from day to day, but unless there is a reason to look at your activities, it really has absolutely no importance. Purchase history of alcohol has little bearing on a potential litigation unless there is other evidence of alcohol influence at the time of a relevant incident. It doesn't however stop a potential plaintiff from, in advance of any legal process, from making threats towards a potential defendant in order to score a result over them before any legal process might start.
On the suggestion the police do not have access to any such search technology, rubbish! If they are in the process of the investigation of crime they have lawful access to the technology of others (just about any other organisation) under a clause within the Data Protection Act. That includes all phone companies and actually just about any organisation that records the sort of data you are talking about. The key is, they can only use these powers to obtain information if they are attempting to investigate crime committed or prevent the commission of a crime. If you are a law abiding civilian, forget it. You have no issue to be concerned about. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley have a lot to answer for when it comes to generating Paranoia within the populace, mainly because what they prophetically wrote about and predicted has come to practical fruition albeit for the general law abiding citizen, these powers and opportunities are not used against them. What would be the point and the level of labour intensity makes the prospect completely unrealistic. Yep, there are systems that can do it, but they are geared to ignore the uninteresting, and frankly, I expect all of us here are exactly that.......uninteresting!
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 15, 2015 21:42:31 GMT
Agree with all of that, Greg. It's not something I lose sleep over.
|
|
|
|
Post by canetoad on Aug 15, 2015 23:04:35 GMT
Now if it is a claim from America, well, we all know they learned a lot from the aliens in Hangar 43 at Roswell don't we? They did. I saw it on this documentary. Oh that's funny! Explains why Apple OS can talk to alien technology.  |
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 16, 2015 7:13:50 GMT
As this is a forum sir, you are perfectly entitled to express your opinion. However to use the term rubbish, is impolite and slightly offensive. I work in an category A prison and deal with the constabulary every single day. I can tell you for a fact that they have never caught an absconder by 'beaming into his phone card' which he bought from the prison canteen. I suggest that you qualify your claim by listing a few instances where Her Majesty's Constabulary have used such technology. Not instances recorded in Titbits or the Daily Sun either! |
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 16, 2015 7:20:42 GMT
Paranoia. If you live and act out an uninteresting and lawful life (like most of us do), so what! There will be no interest in you other than through cookies I am sorry to have to take you to task yet again sir, but I do not feel that you are right in neither of those claims. Regarding never breaking the law, have you 'never' exceeded the 70 mile per hour limit on the motorway? If you have why didn't the constabulary 'beam into your chipped car' and issue you with a fine? The reason, as I am told by the constabulary themselves is that they do not possess that technology yet. Regarding cookies, another error, if you use adblock, peerblock or barracuda, no one can put cookies on your PC. I can tell you this sir, because 'I do'! p.s. I never watch the X-Files, too far fetched, give me Star Trek any day  |
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 16, 2015 7:23:18 GMT
Ive heard people say it goes on, for ages. I've just never seen any actual evidence that it does. I know phones track you and can be wiped remotely etc. I gave Google permission years ago to do so. It's the contactless cards being used to track you "everywhere" that I question. Yes, it's an urban myth. |
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 16, 2015 7:24:26 GMT
Is there any documented, reliable evidence that this is the case, or that it is being used in that way (reliable, as is recognised news or academic or such like source)? I understood that the power of the chip in the card is such that it cannot be read if you are further than a few cm away. That is quite correct. |
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 16, 2015 7:26:53 GMT
One thing for sure, it has certainly proved a lively topic of debate on the forum.
Congratulations to everyone who contributed, everyone is entitled to their opinion whether informed or not, it's what makes the site so interesting, thank you everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 16, 2015 10:34:55 GMT
Maybe the standard police forces don't have all the equipment, but be certain that the intelligence agencies do. It's of no consequence, they're not after you. Probably |
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 16, 2015 10:46:16 GMT
Maybe the standard police forces don't have all the equipment, but be certain that the intelligence agencies do. It's of no consequence, they're not after you. Probably I'll tell you a true story that will make you smile Martin. I was sitting in prison reception one shift and the West Yorkshire Constabulary phoned from Leeds Crown Court, this was what the officer said to me, "I have to let you know that prisoner Doe will not be coming back to you this evening, he's jumped the dock. You wouldn't have any idea where he might have gone would you"? My reply was, "I'd try his Mother's kitchen first, he might be having a cup of tea with her". He thanked me and we ended our call and I thought no more about it apart from the fact that we had another bed for a new reception that shift. The following week, who should be booked in again but prisoner Doe and as luck would have it I processed him, "Where were you when the officers caught you"? I asked him. "At our old lady's", he admitted. Not exactly C.S.I. standard detection was it ha ha ha? The Constabulary in England don't really embrace new technology quickly. I give you my word that the story is absolutely true. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 16, 2015 17:54:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 16, 2015 20:36:15 GMT
As this is a forum sir, you are perfectly entitled to express your opinion.
However to use the term rubbish, is impolite and slightly offensive.
I work in an category A prison and deal with the constabulary every single day. I can tell you for a fact that they have never caught an absconder by 'beaming into his phone card' which he bought from the prison canteen. I suggest that you qualify your claim by listing a few instances where Her Majesty's Constabulary have used such technology. Not instances recorded in Titbits or the Daily Sun either!
Thank you. I was not aware you have become a moderator here but it is good to know that you permit me to express my opinion.
I am sorry you find the word 'rubbish' impolite and offensive. As my opinion according to you is valid, I consider the word in this context probably the most polite and least offensive of the words I could have used in response to some of the nonsense I read above.
From what you have said about your employment, I deduce that you are probably a Prison Officer or an associated civilian worker operating at the fundamental levels of the prison service. To the police, the fact you are working in a Cat A prison is irrelevant. Regardless of how often you correspond with your local constabulary and regardless of what they tell you, be advised that they will never reveal to you at any level what their investigative capabilities are, and in fact probably most of the police officers you talk to have no knowledge of that capability either.
it would probably be helpful for you to return to my original post to read and ingest exactly what I said, because clearly you have failed to do this. If you had done so you would not have posted as you have, unless of course you struggle with basic understanding and of course your lack of knowledge on the laws of data sharing (Data Protection Act) and restrictions on intelligence gathering (RIPA). The reason why the police have not used their capability to trace an absconder (really....from a Cat A prison?) is that they are constrained in the legislation by the term, 'the nature and seriousness of the matter'. Furthermore, the retention of prisoners in HMP is the responsibility of that service. Certainly you on occasions mess up and when the absconder is out in the community, it then becomes a police matter, but may not advocate severe security tracking and if it does, understand, they will not talk to you about it.
So, sorry, not coming from Tit Bits or any other tabloid paper. I speak from professional experience having completed 30 years in law enforcement which includes working on major crime including (your well loved reference to) Cat A prisoners.
Your reference to cookie protection is irrelevant in this discussion. Cookies are not a problem to me and I ignore them. So what......they are not actually making me do anything, are they? As for the police accessing vehicle computer chips, please get real and throw off your paranoia. Britain is a long way away from becoming this kind of controlling (police) state.......as said before, they are not interested unless of course you are a person of interest which will draw their attention.
Finally, to challenge your claim that the Police do not have current technology, on the 1st Jan 1996, Evon Berry was murdered in St Paul's, Bristol. That was nearly twenty years ago. I worked on that inquiry. From a HMCS court file, here is a basic summary of the incident............
The facts
3. At about 7.00 am on New Years day 1996, the defendant, who had been drinking and had taken an ecstasy tablet, robbed at gunpoint the driver of a parked car. During the robbery he was approached by three men who had seen him hitting the driver over the head with a hand gun. The first of these men, Evon Berry, tried to stop the violence, emphasising that it was New Year. The defendant then threatened the three men with the gun. A number of other men came up to assist the defendant, either preventing the three men from leaving or, in one case, chasing one of them.
4. In the course of the next few minutes the defendant shot Evon Berry in the neck from a range of only a few inches. Berry had his hands up in the “surrender” position at the time. He died soon afterwards.
5. One of Berry’s two friends was shot in the chest but survived. It was not certain who had fired that shot but the defendant and his two co-accused were all convicted of attempted murder on the basis of joint enterprise. His co-defendants were also convicted of the murder of Berry on the basis of joint The facts
3. At about 7.00 am on New Years day 1996, the defendant, who had been drinking and had taken an ecstasy tablet, robbed at gunpoint the driver of a parked car. During the robbery he was approached by three men who had seen him hitting the driver over the head with a hand gun. The first of these men, Evon Berry, tried to stop the violence, emphasising that it was New Year. The defendant then threatened the three men with the gun. A number of other men came up to assist the defendant, either preventing the three men from leaving or, in one case, chasing one of them.
4. In the course of the next few minutes the defendant shot Evon Berry in the neck from a range of only a few inches. Berry had his hands up in the “surrender” position at the time. He died soon afterwards.
5. One of Berry’s two friends was shot in the chest but survived. It was not certain who had fired that shot but the defendant and his two co-accused were all convicted of attempted murder on the basis of joint enterprise. His co-defendants were also convicted of the murder of Berry on the basis of joint enterprise.
The priciple offender was a man called Errol Jones. His accomplaces were Derek Jones and Gary Nelson. All were members of the Gouch Close Gang based in Manchester. All of them left Bristol rapidly after the killing. Approximately a month later, Errol Jones and Derek Jones were arrested on suspicion of this murder. Errol was in Glasgow and Derek was in Wolverhampton. All three were convicted of murder.How did we do it......we tracked them through pinging the mobile phones they were using. That is nearly twenty years ago. Please, Please, Please stop posting crap about any lack of technology the Police have. You don't know and you are not in any position to express any opinion on this matter. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by roxbrough on Aug 17, 2015 6:56:57 GMT
Dear Greg,
The use of the word 'rubbish' was ungentlemanly and vulgar, I sir, am a gentleman.
My understanding of police procedures follows a six week period working very closely with them and undergoing screening before signing the official secret's act myself.
Of course prisoners abscond from category A prisons, not all prisoners are category A, in a category A prison. The custody of prisoners in a Crown Court is often the responsibility of Her Majesty's Constabulary.
Finally, mentioning specific times, dates and personnel proves that you are very foolhardy indeed, or that you have not signed the afor mentioned act. As I said in a previous post, if such technology existed it would be used in place of speed cameras and make a considerable revenue for the DVLA. The average constable hardly uses a computer, never mind Enterprise-type sensors.
Now I suggest we leave the matter and return to Audio.
|
|
