Mobile ANPR cameras are also used by some police forces. These are deployed in popular locations such as shopping centres for so-called “lockdown” operations, where every vehicle entering the area is checked against records as police fish for reasons to impound cars and fine drivers. One such operation in November 2008, which was filmed for television (relevant segment starts at 21m30s), saw 369 vehicles stopped, 84 tickets issued, 51 cars seized and 12 people arrested at Bluewater shopping centre in Kent – in a single day.

It’s no longer a case of “follow that car” but “follow every car.”

ACPO defend their wholesale surveillance system by pointing to a few high-profile cases where ANPR evidence has formed part of a prosecution. They’re less keen to highlight the cases of mistaken identity, inaccurate record-keeping and official ineptitude that have left innocent people standing on the kerbside holding a ticket as an officer drives away in their vehicle. Even if these drivers manage to prove the database wrong they can end up paying hundreds of pounds in fees to get their car back – if it hasn’t been crushed.

Supporters of ANPR technology claim vehicle license-plate data is exempt from the Data Protection Act because it’s not “personal information” (it’s about the vehicle not the driver). However the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) sells access to the names and addresses of registered vehicle-keepers for £2.50p a time, making this distinction academic.

In common with the National Identity Register, National DNA Database and all the other tentacles of the database state, once this information is collected there’s nothing to stop it falling into the hands of other public or private organisations, either by accident, commercial arrangement or official decree. Wouldn’t you like to know where your partner really drives off to while you’re at work? I bet there’s a good number of private investigators who would.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is currently “working with” ACPO to determine whether the national ANPR network is “appropriate and proportionate” – which means nobody bothered to ask those questions before the system was commissioned.

Who stands up for the public interest in the rush to implement new technologies like ANPR for official convenience? I don’t recall there being a public or Parliamentary debate on giving the police these game-changing surveillance powers. Has anyone considered the down-side of collecting all this data?

Somehow I doubt it.

Under the headline “Is electro smog causing your headache?” Philips claims that plans to wifi-enable towns such as Swindon could have “potentially disastrous consequences for the nation’s health.”

Far from doing no harm, some studies suggest that as much as five per cent of the population may already be suffering from headaches, concentration difficulties, chronic fatigue, irritability and behavioural problems because of this electro smog.

Philips has conveniently forgotten to cite the studies to which he is referring. This is a practice for which believers in the existence of electrosensitivity have a reputation. Not only that, the Daily Mail has forgotten to mention Alasdair Philips’ business, through which he sells advice and equipment that he claims will mitigate the effects of electrosensitivity. Perhaps the Mail thought drawing attention to this fact would leave them open to accusations of passing-off biased opinion as journalism.

So a partial commentator writes a scare story in a newspaper renowned for making money out of printing scare stories. Now you’re wondering why I’m bothering to mention such an everyday occurrance…

The phrase “wifi health risks” ranks highly in the search terms people use to find this blog because I’ve written about this subject in the past so I want to reassure people arriving here on the back of such a search, and who might be worried about the health implications of wifi, that the scientific community believes there are none. If you are one such person, please read Ben Goldacre’s excellent coverage of the topic in his Guardian newspaper column, or on his Bad Science blog.

The Internet is the most revolutionary human invention since the printing press. The roll-out of pervasive wireless networking in homes, schools, businesses and public places will be a great enabler. It will provide access to those on the wrong side of the digital divide, promote the development of innovative new services and businesses, and transform our lives in ways we cannot yet imagine.

We must not allow selfish interests to turn the promise of this bountiful commons into a fear-fuelled tragedy.

The use of closed-circuit television in city and town centres and public housing estates does not have a significant effect on crime, according to Home Office-funded research to be distributed to all police forces in England and Wales this summer.

This is a shame since…

Over the last decade, CCTV accounted for more than three quarters of total spending on crime prevention by the British Home Office…

The Lords report said that £500 million was spent in Britain on CCTV in the decade up to 2006, money which in the past would have gone on street lighting or neighbourhood crime prevention initiatives.

If the Home Office’s attitude to CCTV doesn’t change in the light of these findings more people will start to wonder about the nature of the Government’s surveillance agenda.

Hat tip: Glyn Moody

First up: The Office of Public Sector Information has launched a beta test of a new Public Sector Information Unlocking Service:

As the regulator for public sector information re-use, we know that people can encounter difficulty from time to time getting hold of the information they need in the formats they want. … If you are trying to re-use some public sector information, but the data you need is locked-up, this service is for you.

Secondly, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has launched InnovationNation – an attempt to break down the “classic consult/deliver dichotomy”:

We’d love this interactive document to become a place where policymakers, stakeholders and interested citizens come together to help move a policy forward, and we’ll be doing our best to act as a bridge between commenters and the civil servants who are working hard to change things.

Finally, let’s not forget e-petitions (the problems with which are political rather than technological), and the use of micro- and traditional blogging by MPs and political institutions to engage with the public on an increasingly personal level.

It would be churlish of me to belittle these positive achievements by demanding that the moon be delivered on a stick tomorrow, but I can’t help thinking if only there were some way of joining up all these initiatives into a coherent, navigable and accessible framework for public-government interaction. That would be a real breakthrough in Transformational Government!

Politicians and civil servants may not be running rings around the intertubes just yet, but at least they’re finally learning to walk. There’s a faint whiff of optimism coming from .gov.uk at the moment and I think we should inhale while it lasts.

What improvements would you like to see in your technological interactions with Government?