Police want travel card data to track suspicious rail passengers. How much is our privacy under threat?

[Towers]

I assume we are all ok with extending football banning orders to trains and using drones. Are we ok with central camera usesage/access? if so why is travel card data such a no no?

I'm unsure why anybody who isn't a lowlife thug scumbag should have any issue with football banning orders being extended to include rail travel? Ideally they'd extend to everywhere beyond the recipients' front doorsteps, but that's a different conversation! Unless you're suggesting that they are imposed in a manner that is questionable?

As for tracking passengers' travel patterns, sadly that seems an inevitable development to some degree in this brave new era of electronic ticketing. Unless it's intended to create an offence of 'spending too long on the Underground' I don't really see what the BTP, particularly with their extremely limited resources, are likely to be able to do about it. Most of those who might be 'of interest' are probably going to have hugely varied travel patterns, whether their intentions are innocent or otherwise. Once they're inside the system, they won't be found until they emerge.

 

[MikeWM]

I look at a story like this, and I look at the massive amount of nudging that is going on to try to stop people using paper tickets and cash (welcomed by most on this forum, it seems), and could the two things possibly be related somehow? I do wonder if people are going to join the dots before or after it is too late to do anything about it.

And I find the argument that there's a lot of surveillance and tracking around already so where's the harm in adding some more, as some seem to have argued here, utterly bizarre.

 

[roversfan2001]

I'm unsure why anybody who isn't a lowlife thug scumbag should have any issue with football banning orders being extended to include rail travel? Ideally they'd extend to everywhere beyond the recipients' front doorsteps, but that's a different conversation! Unless you're suggesting that they are imposed in a manner that is questionable?

Ignoring the fact that they're handed out like goody bags at a kid's birthday party, do you really want people subject to FBO's to be placed under house arrest whenever their team play?

Some FBO's ban the subject from all rail travel on matchdays, meaning a Plymouth fan would be violating their ban by travelling between Edinburgh Waverley and Haymarket on a day that Plymouth play at home. No one can argue that that is proportionate to any offence committed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I look at a story like this, and I look at the massive amount of nudging that is going on to try to stop people using paper tickets and cash (welcomed by most on this forum, it seems), and could the two things possibly be related somehow? I do wonder if people are going to join the dots before or after it is too late to do anything about it.

And I find the argument that there's a lot of surveillance and tracking around already so where's the harm in adding some more, as some seem to have argued here, utterly bizarre.

I very much doubt it. The reason for the push to electronic ticketing and away from cash is simply to save money and has happened in lots of industries, not just rail - for instance cinemas no longer have a ticket desk (and thus have fewer staff), they have successfully pushed people to advance booking by introducing seat selection, so the earlier you book the better your seat, while they retain a few "TVMs" for those who haven't for whatever reason booked. This sort of thing is a side benefit/disbenefit (depending on your view). As for cash it's costly to process (you need to count it and pay a company to securely transport it to the bank), though you only really make a significant saving by eliminating it entirely, if you have any of it you still incur most of the cost.

 

[ExRes]

I look at a story like this, and I look at the massive amount of nudging that is going on to try to stop people using paper tickets and cash (welcomed by most on this forum, it seems), and could the two things possibly be related somehow? I do wonder if people are going to join the dots before or after it is too late to do anything about it.

And I find the argument that there's a lot of surveillance and tracking around already so where's the harm in adding some more, as some seem to have argued here, utterly bizarre.

Out of interest perhaps you could tell us how ".. people are going to join the dots before or after it is too late to do anything about it", what precisely are people going to do about it? when you turned your computer/device on this morning you allowed people to track your behaviour

 

[DelW]

Well, that's done it if ever I want to do the Zones 1 & 2 challenge on the Alternative Tube Challenges website. Over seven hours and all I'd get after it would be the police marking me down as a potential drug dealer or sex offender or pickpocket.
Similarly, if I get the train from London to Liverpool to tick off a new bit of track and perhaps go down to the lower level if there's time to see some more Merseyrail units before getting the same train back, that's a nice little trip that doesn't take a hugely long time but it still very helpful for highlighting and underlining.

Well, if you're doing an all-stations challenge, you'd be much better off using a paper travelcard anyway (to avoid Oyster journey-time issues), which can't be tracked. Similarly if you travel to Liverpool and back on a paper ticket no-one will know who you are.

Of course the drug couriers and others referred to as targets of this proposal will be well aware of this and will use untrackable tickets and phones, so it's unlikely to work anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ignoring the fact that they're handed out like goody bags at a kid's birthday party

Perhaps if people behaved more appropriately they'd not be. I'm not a regular football fan, but I have been to matches, and I've never seen any suggestion that I might get one because I behave in a proper manner for being in public even if I've had a pint or 5 (all it does to me is make me a bit louder and then eventually fall asleep). If alcohol means you don't behave properly, moderate your consumption. I don't really have any sympathy for those who end up with these orders, and they're probably more effective, because they ban the fan from what they really want to do (go to the footy), than just bringing a charge of "drunk and disorderly" or whatever, and also remove the fan from the place they were causing trouble so they can't any more.

I would agree that banning them from the rail network entirely is disproportionate, though.

Out of interest perhaps you could tell us how ".. people are going to join the dots before or after it is too late to do anything about it", what precisely are people going to do about it? when you turned your computer/device on this morning you allowed people to track your behaviour

If you've got a mobile phone of any kind, including a basic dumbphone, you're being tracked whenever it's on. If it can see 3 cell towers it knows very accurately where you are.

 

[Purple Train]

Well, if you're doing an all-stations challenge, you'd be much better off using a paper travelcard anyway (to avoid Oyster journey-time issues), which can't be tracked. Similarly if you travel to Liverpool and back on a paper ticket no-one will know who you are.

Of course the drug couriers and others referred to as targets of this proposal will be well aware of this and will use untrackable tickets and phones, so it's unlikely to work anyway.

Indeed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, if you're doing an all-stations challenge, you'd be much better off using a paper travelcard anyway (to avoid Oyster journey-time issues), which can't be tracked. Similarly if you travel to Liverpool and back on a paper ticket no-one will know who you are.

Of course the drug couriers and others referred to as targets of this proposal will be well aware of this and will use untrackable tickets and phones, so it's unlikely to work anyway.

Or they'll purchase an e-ticket with a stolen credit card and a false address, so the wrong person will get the knock at the door.

 

[Bertie the bus]

That proposal is terrifying from both a civil liberties perspective and the fact it shows there are high up people in the police who are absolutely clueless.

D’Orsi said she wanted to look at using data in a “better way”. She added: “Another example is somebody who takes a train from London to Liverpool and gets the return train back. That’s not normal. That’s not what people do.

Just disproves the saying that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. The police determining what is “normal” and making the assumption that you are clearly up to something if your behaviour is abnormal in their view should worry everybody.

She told Policing TV: “An example I gave recently is somebody who’s travelling the [London] Underground for six hours. So they tap in and they tap out six hours later? Why is that? Possibly vulnerable, possibly a pickpocket, possibly a predatory sex offender.”

Drug dealers use untraceable burner phones so it wouldn’t require too much intelligence on behalf of someone up to no good to use an unregistered Oyster card. So people who are doing nothing wrong would attract police attention but those who are committing criminal acts wouldn’t come to the police’s attention. Good plan.

 

[43066]

If you've got a mobile phone of any kind, including a basic dumbphone, you're being tracked whenever it's on. If it can see 3 cell towers it knows very accurately where you are.

Yes but the police will only look at that information reactively when gathering evidence, for example if someone is accused of a crime their phone provider records may be accessed to identify their whereabouts. They police don’t use this information to proactively monitor you, looking for behaviour they deem “unusual”, which is what appears to be being suggested here.

 

[MikeWM]

Out of interest perhaps you could tell us how ".. people are going to join the dots before or after it is too late to do anything about it", what precisely are people going to do about it?

Demand that we can keep the right to travel anonymously, using paper tickets bought with cash? Seems worth a try at least.

Or maybe we can push back on the idea that it is ok that the police can access a database of everyone's movements and run an algorithm on it to work out if people are 'suspicious' or not? The police have *no right* to have access to my movement information unless they already have some reasonable reason to suspect that I am suspicious in some way. It is about time we remembered that.

Again, this argument seems to be 'well, it's already happening, so why bother if there's some more of it?'

when you turned your computer/device on this morning you allowed people to track your behaviour

But I get significant benefit from using my computer - my job pays me for doing so, for example - so I (reluctantly) accept that, even though I totally object to the mass retention of data that I know is going on behind the scenes.

 

[roversfan2001]

Perhaps if people behaved more appropriately they'd not be. I'm not a regular football fan, but I have been to matches, and I've never seen any suggestion that I might get one because I behave in a proper manner for being in public even if I've had a pint or 5 (all it does to me is make me a bit louder and then eventually fall asleep). If alcohol means you don't behave properly, moderate your consumption. I don't really have any sympathy for those who end up with these orders, and they're probably more effective, because they ban the fan from what they really want to do (go to the footy), than just bringing a charge of "drunk and disorderly" or whatever, and also remove the fan from the place they were causing trouble so they can't any more.

I would agree that banning them from the rail network entirely is disproportionate, though.

This is a topic that's definitely better discussed over in General Discussion but the ease in which an FBO can be given to someone and the wide range of things it can cover is very worrying, even for people who behave at the footy.

 

[MikeWM]

If you've got a mobile phone of any kind, including a basic dumbphone, you're being tracked whenever it's on. If it can see 3 cell towers it knows very accurately where you are.

You can choose not to take it out with you though. I didn't take a phone out with me during the stricter parts of the various lockdowns, for example, for precisely that reason - and indeed it was later revealed that phone data in many countries was being used to track 'compliance' with lockdown.

Also, at this point, you can still use a mobile phone with a PAYG 'top-up' plan without it being directly associated with you. It would require a non-zero amount of work to associate that with a specific individual (which obviously you could do based on the locations the phone visits, but it adds a level of complication for the surveillance to deal with). Though I don't expect that to be the case for much longer because such plans are being made prohibitively expensive, plus I expect soon we'll see proposals such as they have in many other countries already, that you can only activate a SIM by showing official ID.

And even the police aren't saying (yet) that they should be able to track everyone's movements via their phone and pick out the 'suspicious' ones. Though I expect that will be coming soon enough.

 

[ExRes]

Demand that we can keep the right to travel anonymously, using paper tickets bought with cash? Seems worth a try at least.

Or maybe we can push back on the idea that it is ok that the police can access a database of everyone's movements and run an algorithm on it to work out if people are 'suspicious' or not? The police have *no right* to have access to my movement information unless they already have some reasonable reason to suspect that I am suspicious in some way. It is about time we remembered that.

Again, this argument seems to be 'well, it's already happening, so why bother if there's some more of it?'



But I get significant benefit from using my computer - my job pays me for doing so, for example - so I (reluctantly) accept that, even though I totally object to the mass retention of data that I know is going on behind the scenes.

Trouble with that though is that cash is heading ever more quickly for the door, Covid, of course, was a handy trial run for a non cash payment world and things like wholesale high street bank closures and self service shopping drives a card only scenario ever closer

Personally I don't waste my time worrying about "so why bother", my brother in law worked for the communications department of a large employer in Gloucestershire for some time, he used to tell us what we could do without being monitored in some way, they were exceedingly short conversations

 

[bramling]

Perhaps if people behaved more appropriately they'd not be. I'm not a regular football fan, but I have been to matches, and I've never seen any suggestion that I might get one because I behave in a proper manner for being in public even if I've had a pint or 5 (all it does to me is make me a bit louder and then eventually fall asleep). If alcohol means you don't behave properly, moderate your consumption. I don't really have any sympathy for those who end up with these orders, and they're probably more effective, because they ban the fan from what they really want to do (go to the footy), than just bringing a charge of "drunk and disorderly" or whatever, and also remove the fan from the place they were causing trouble so they can't any more.

I would agree that banning them from the rail network entirely is disproportionate, though.



If you've got a mobile phone of any kind, including a basic dumbphone, you're being tracked whenever it's on. If it can see 3 cell towers it knows very accurately where you are.

It’s still possible to buy a PAYG phone, pay cash for it, and not be required to provide any identification. One presumes this is what the drug carriers do.

 

[nottsnurse]

Do the police routinely scan the numberplate data of motorists to spot unusual travel patterns ? I wonder what the press would have to say.

Yes.

Number plates registered in distant areas of the country are often stopped at night in known trouble spots.

It's called proactive policing and is based upon sound logic and results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s still possible to buy a PAYG phone, pay cash for it, and not be required to provide any identification. One presumes this is what the drug carriers do.

Is it? Must admit I'm surprised; I thought you had to register them (though because the UK doesn't have mandatory ID you could just give a false name and address).

This is a topic that's definitely better discussed over in General Discussion but the ease in which an FBO can be given to someone and the wide range of things it can cover is very worrying, even for people who behave at the footy.

I've created a thread in General Discussion to continue this, I'd be interested to know more.

 

[Towers]

Ignoring the fact that they're handed out like goody bags at a kid's birthday party, do you really want people subject to FBO's to be placed under house arrest whenever their team play?

Some FBO's ban the subject from all rail travel on matchdays, meaning a Plymouth fan would be violating their ban by travelling between Edinburgh Waverley and Haymarket on a day that Plymouth play at home. No one can argue that that is proportionate to any offence committed.

Being denied use of the railways is hardly 'house arrest'.

The railway and it's decent, fare paying passengers suffer considerably at the hands of fans/yobs, a situation which many understandbly take issue with. Alas, the prevailing attitude is that since rail is a good mover of people and heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, it must do it's bit. That is what it is, but it certainly shouldn't extend to the very worst of the thugs. It is of course also true that plenty of aggro happens on trains and stations as well as at the ground, all part of the day's fun for some. Banning them from the rails, on matchdays at least, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[MikeWM]

Trouble with that though is that cash is heading ever more quickly for the door, Covid, of course, was a handy trial run for a non cash payment world and things like wholesale high street bank closures and self service shopping drives a card only scenario ever closer

Of course. I'm under no illusions whatever that I'm going to lose these battles eventually, and as a society we're sleepwalking - well, actually running very fast - into a digital surveillance state.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to fight it and try to make people aware of where I believe this journey is taking us. Cash is one of the biggest roadblocks on this journey.

Personally I don't waste my time worrying about "so why bother", my brother in law worked for the communications department of a large employer in Gloucestershire for some time, he used to tell us what we could do without being monitored in some way, they were exceedingly short conversations

Just because it is that way doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it. And that doesn't mean we should just accept things getting worse and worse. We do, of course - the response to Edward Snowden's revelations was largely 'well, we thought they were doing that anyway' and the government response was to quietly pass laws to make legal all the things they were previously doing that were illegal or questionable.

But we really *shouldn't* accept this in a supposedly free society, and we really shouldn't accept the idea that the police can look through all our movements or activities simply to determine if some of them are 'suspicious'.

 

[Magdalia]

Who as a rail enthusiast hasn't displayed "strange" travel patterns. "Commuters needn't worry" because obviously trudging to your mill or your office is the only legitimate form of travel in the new papers please society.

This woman would have had a bright career in the Stasi by the sounds of it.

This reminds me of a story that I heard a long time ago, from someone who frequently travelled behind the Iron Curtain in the Cold War Years.

Some of you will know that Berlin had an extensive tram network. When the Wall was built the tram network had contrasting fortunes either side of the Wall. By 1967 all the trams were gone from the West, but in the East the network was expanded.

The story concerns a tram enthusiast living in the West, but occasionally getting passes to visit the East. On those visits they indulged their passion for tram travel. This quickly came to the attention of the Stasi, who had them followed. After a few more visits, the Stasi were completely flummoxed by their travel patterns, so banned them from any future visits to the East. After the Wall came down, and Germany was unified, the Stasi files were opened up, and the tram enthusiast was able to discover that all of their tram journeys had been faithfully recorded in their Stasi file.

The truth is we have sleepwalked into an Orwellian nightmare that is quickly becoming all consuming, vast networks of data that can now be compiled and attached to actual people automatically, that's not even including all the clandestine snooping the likes of GCHQ engage in.

I reread 1984 during one of the covid lockdowns. Orwell got two big things wrong. One was the year, 2024 would have been a closer guess. The other was the technology: Orwell imagined us being watched through our TV screens, he didn't foresee the mobile smartphone.

If you have never read 1984, read it now. If you read it a long time ago, read it again, it looks a very different book now.

Big Brother is watching you.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Until the police decide that isn't sufficient proof after a drug dealer disguises themselves as a trainspotter...

I do not trust anyone who says “We’re not looking for [a commuter’s] data, we’re looking for the data of the predatory sex offender", since you won't be able to know whether some data is that of a commuter's or of a sex offender's without looking at it.

Exactly. Its function creep. Obtain the data for one purpose, then use it for others

 

[Taunton]

D’Orsi said she wanted to look at using data in a “better way”. She added: “Another example is somebody who takes a train from London to Liverpool and gets the return train back. That’s not normal. That’s not what people do.

We have someone at the office who quite regularly takes legal papers up country, say from London to Manchester, meets the signatory in the cafe (or, I suspect, bar!), and gets the next train back with them. Sometimes more than once in a week. It's quicker and more reliable than a courier. The railway has always been very happy for the substantial revenue associated with this.

One would have thought that the head of the BTP, of all legal organisations, would be aware of this traffic, on Anytime tickets (as they are billed on to the client). Just ask the TOC's commercial department. It's not uncommon.

** They once went from London to a Greek Island when a land purchase signatory was on holiday, out and back on the same holiday plane.

 

[bramling]

Is it? Must admit I'm surprised; I thought you had to register them (though because the UK doesn't have mandatory ID you could just give a false name and address).

Absolutely possible.

 

[Howardh]

but after a few (brief?) questions all should be good.

Got to ask why? If I'm touring the tube, maybe somewhere to keep warm in winter, minding my own business and all that, I don't want some uniformed or plain-clothes "officer" of some kind questioning me either in public or taken to an office. If I'm doing nothing illegal it's nothing to do with them.

Just imagine at the gates "You've been flagged up as being on the underground for six hours sir/madam?" So flipping what?? Tell you what, if it were a homeless person I bet they wouldn't find them a bed for the night.

Far too (the former) East Germany for comfort.

 

[Skymonster]

She added: “Another example is somebody who takes a train from London to Liverpool and gets the return train back. That’s not normal. That’s not what people do. So why is somebody doing that? That could be county lines, somebody’s dropping some drugs up there then coming back down to London.”

So you go to Liverpool for an hour or so, and when you get back to Euston plod is there looking for you and waiting to ask you why - or rocks up on your doorstep later with the same question. Because the plod - and big brother - has tracked your ticket purchase and usage, and believes it represents suspicious behaviour. No thank you, that’s not a country I want to live in. The answer is ‘none of your business.‘ Plod needs to get real evidence [in the example cited see a package being passed over, accost the recipient, and analyse the content] rather than rely on notional behavioural characteristics. If anyone thinks this sort of data use is acceptable, they seriously don’t care about their personal liberty.

 

[Towers]

We have someone at the office who quite regularly takes legal papers up country, say from London to Manchester, meets the signatory in the cafe (or, I suspect, bar!), and gets the next train back with them. Sometimes more than once in a week. It's quicker and more reliable than a courier. The railway has always been very happy for the substantial revenue associated with this.

One would have thought that the head of the BTP, of all legal organisations, would be aware of this traffic, on Anytime tickets (as they are billed on to the client). Just ask the TOC's commercial department. It's not uncommon.

** They once went from London to a Greek Island when a land purchase signatory was on holiday, out and back on the same holiday plane.

There is, I would think, close to absolutely zero chance that the BTP would be able to receive information that a person has recently arrived somewhere and immediately turned around again (how would they know until it actually happens), and would be able to process the intel and have the officers in place to apprehend the person by the time they return to their (presumed) destination. They could look to collect the data and act on it afterwards of course, but then you can hardly go around knocking on people's doors demanding an explanation of their recent travel habits. Not that this would fall to the BTP anyway I presume, more likely the local force, who of course will have no resources for such nonsense.

This all seems very similar to the recent/current 'looked at me funny' poster campaign, in that there is an ideal of tracking a huge amount of potentially criminal behaviour, that just isn't backed up by the reality of actual BTP resources.

What I will say, is that IF there is existing intel on a particular person, i.e. they're a known or suspected dealer etc, then use of this data to assist investigations is fine by me. However that is entirely different from suggesting wrongdoing based just on the data itself.

 

[DarloRich]

We have someone at the office who quite regularly takes legal papers up country, say from London to Manchester, meets the signatory in the cafe (or, I suspect, bar!), and gets the next train back with them. Sometimes more than once in a week. It's quicker and more reliable than a courier. The railway has always been very happy for the substantial revenue associated with this.

I have done that many times ( in another life). I doubt it would be a problem. In the unlikely event of being stopped you have a perfectly reasonable explanation: I was couriering some legal documents.

So you go to Liverpool for an hour or so, and when you get back to Euston plod is there looking for you and waiting to ask you why - or rocks up on your doorstep later with the same question.

Shall we try to be realistic?

That isn't going to happen though is it? Do you think the police have the resources to do what you suggest?

What is going to happen is that the travel pattern of Mr Skymonster trips some threshold. A report will be generated for review. Someone will look at the report and other sources of intelligence and see Mr Skymonster doesn't feature and so they don't need to take any action. At worst they are going to make a note of the name for future reference. That's exactly what the police do now.

Got to ask why? If I'm touring the tube, maybe somewhere to keep warm in winter, minding my own business and all that, I don't want some uniformed or plain-clothes "officer" of some kind questioning me either in public or taken to an office. If I'm doing nothing illegal it's nothing to do with them.

Just imagine at the gates "You've been flagged up as being on the underground for six hours sir/madam?" So flipping what?? Tell you what, if it were a homeless person I bet they wouldn't find them a bed for the night.

I simply don't see this kind of suggestion as realistic. I MIGHT agree with you if posited a situation whereby Mr HowardH had been reported missing and defined as vulnerable but for someone having a jolly on the tube..................

What I will say, is that IF there is existing intel on a particular person, i.e. they're a known or suspected dealer etc, then use of this data to assist investigations is fine by me. However that is entirely different from suggesting wrongdoing based just on the data itself.

absolutely.

Until the police decide that isn't sufficient proof after a drug dealer disguises themselves as a trainspotter...

I do not trust anyone who says “We’re not looking for [a commuter’s] data, we’re looking for the data of the predatory sex offender", since you won't be able to know whether some data is that of a commuter's or of a sex offender's without looking at it.

I agree - you wont be able to do this from this data ALONE. However, when added to other intelligence it might help to flesh out a pattern of behaviour requiring further investigation.

 

[Taunton]

I have done that many times ( in another life). I doubt it would be a problem. In the unlikely event of being stopped you have a perfectly reasonable explanation: I was couriering some legal documents.

But it is a problem when the official police attitude is "that's not what normal people do", which among other things shows they don't have an understanding of what goes on in the real world. Which is frankly disappointing, especially when they then brief their lower level plods accordingly, as here.

 

[DarloRich]

But it is a problem when the official police attitude is "that's not what normal people do".

is that not the default Police position on everything?