Taxi Driver Online

1 September 1939 Germany invades Poland.
17 September 1939 Soviet Union invades Poland.

Have I missed something?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I think the voice argument is being made by the anti CCTV brigade in Southampton.

As for the pros and cons of voice, my view is that in incidents of violence against drivers it has little evidential effect, although it could help.

But voice comes into it's own when drivers are going to defend themselves against unwarranted or spurious complaints, and/or racist/homophobic verbal assaults.

_________________
IDFIMH

Long since been debunked, (The Soviets declared on the 17th that Poland as a state no longer exists)like the Gulf of Tonkin, Burning of the Reichstag, Pearl Harbour, USS Liberty, Bush Nazis connection, I could go on all day. There is History, like the one alluded to by Doom on the other thread, were Imperialist Britain was this great bastion of "democracy", then there is the Subversive (real) history were The great east India company wasn't actually a company at all, it was created by Royal Charter for the sole purpose of Imperialism by the back door. It was actually the forerunner for what has continued ever since.
The real history will tell you that up to 20 million Indians were purposely stared under British rule, however you will do well to find that in main stream "Western history" books.
Don't even get me started on Economics and banking...

I have read the CCTV code of conduct, and the commission reply to the question of voice recording. Although it doesn't state it to be illegal it is quite clear that they don't consider it best practice unless used in a "threatening" situation. ie panic button.

Saying all this, I agree that in certain situations is would be priceless.

No idea, the article doesn't mention voice.

I have mine off at it is optional. However should it be compulsory it wouldn't make it a deal breaker for me.
As for recording private time, who cares no one will ever see it. The system data is sealed in my boot with no access. If an incident should arise then everything is date and time stamped, you simple search for date time of incident, NOTHING else is viewed apart from the incident itself.

Lets say you go out with the same family, you will be recorded on your journey, go shopping recorded, in shops, in the street....however you have no control over that data, the data in your car you do.

Well that's precisely the point. As far as I can tell the objection to these systems seems to be that it'll be the authorities that will control the data and access to it, not the driver, and that voice will be compulsory.

I have no problem with the system you describe, but I think the criticism is that it's a bit more than that.

I'm not one of those types who moans about CCTV and suchlike, but I just don't like the thought of officialdom having access to video and voice recordings of my private business.

And the difference between that and shops, the streets etc is that they're more public places. As far as my taxi is concerned it's not far away from having a camera up in my home recording my every move

I spoke to a driver today who has just installed a supa dupa system that cost a fortune.

However he doesn't use audio as he is scared that the 'powers that be' will hear him say something not PC when he is not working.

I advised him to put the audio on, as I'm pretty certain the council have better things to spend their time on other than going through hours and hours of cabby ramblings.

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree to an exent, but I would prefer it if the driver had more control.

As I said I have my phone primed to record voice where necessary. Not good quality, but one day it may come in useful, and it doesn't cost anything.

One button and it's recording, one button and it plays back, one button and it's deleted. Most that I do start recording I delete when the journey's over; it's just a precaution.

I don't object to drivers having anything more sophisticated if they want to defend themselves or in case of violence or whatever, but where I am I don't think things are bad enough to require the whole shebang; at the moment I'm happy enough with my phone.

Of course, the passengers' perspective is a whole different ball game.

Equally, I always consider that the passenger may be recording what I say, but in truth I don't have a particular problem with that.

Forgive me I don't know the ins and outs of their case, but I presume you are saying council is the data controller. However the system is still in the drivers boot, not at councils offices. If you read the CCTV code of conduct, a formal written request and grounds have to be given to view the data. So they can't just view as they wish.

The problem with the Anti camp, they have used ppls ignorance on the subject to spread lies and fear.

Well I don't know the precise details of each system, but don't some allow for the data to be uploaded in some way to a remote location such that the council would be able to access it easily if they wanted to be a bit naughty, say if they wanted to gather evidence against an 'awkward squad' driver?

But again this all points to one of the regulatory shortcomings more generally; with several hundred LAs all needing to do things a bit differently to justify thier existence it's difficult to compare them all.

And of course as far as I know only a handful have become involved in compulsory CCTV so far, thus it could all get very messy.

But I think this is why it's all kicking off in Oxford. I suppose in some ways it and a handful of others are guinea pigs.

OK, maybe I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick slightly here, I was assuming that these systems were more like this described in Transport for London's guidelines, only that the authorities would be the ones collecting the data:



http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... d-phvs.pdf

Years ago I recall reading about systems overseas where I think the data was uploaded to an official location and officialdom could thus access it fairly readily, but clearly if the data remains in the vehicle then that's a slightly different ball game.

Christ knows what happen to my last post....somewhere is cyber space

I did say before your last response .... GPRS would be precluded due to on going costs of streaming data over hundreds of cabs.

The Guinea Pig remark was correct. Brighton has made a complete hash of it's implementation largely due to a Union rep who was intellectually out of his depth, but thought he was being cleaver by rewriting the spec for the HCO. This spec is clearly not fit for purpose, and will end in tears.
Not for council I may add, as they wont revoke compulsory (3 rapes in 3 years has seen to that) but for the poor souls that will have purchased "cheap" not fit for purpose systems.

There is IMHO a way for at least a suspension in Brighton, but it would most probably lead to the spec being rewritten "early" and me getting the blame! So I shall wait for it to run its natural course, once it has, I will be shouting from the roof tops which idiots to blame

I pity the fool that would want to on mine!!!

An unlikely scenario



Don't believe that either; I mean, Brighton is 'regulated', innit?

Things like that just don't happen.

Don't they say sarcasm is the highest form of intelligence, probably why yanks don't understand it.