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

[Magdalia]

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.

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)

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?

You have clearly been ignoring all of those announcements and posters. Someone texts 61016. See it. Say it. Sorted.

 

[DarloRich]

You have clearly been ignoring all of those announcements and posters. Someone texts 61016. See it. Say it. Sorted.

I don't understand?

 

[Darandio]

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

But then let's go back to the issue of rail enthusiasts, in all honesty it's why the thread exists. Because they don't understand it that wouldn't be seen as normal behaviour to the majority of the population never mind the police.

 

[eldomtom2]

is that not the default Police position on everything?

Then why do you believe they will use this power for good?

 

[MikeWM]

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.

Of course, but such use should require a warrant. The police shouldn't be allowed to go on fishing expeditions just because they feel like it and the fact there now exists all this logged data means that they *can* do so, there needs to be a process and oversight.

 

[Magdalia]

I don't understand?

You said that @Skymonster's scenario wasn't realistically going to happen. But it only takes someone (at Liverpool in the scenario) to see something they regard as suspicious, and text 61016, like they've been told in the announcements, and the police will be "on the case". It is a very realistic scenario.

 

[DarloRich]

You said that @Skymonster's scenario wasn't realistically going to happen. But it only takes someone (at Liverpool in the scenario) to see something they regard as suspicious, and text 61016, like they've been told in the announcements, and the police will be "on the case". It is a very realistic scenario.

I have used the text line several times. Never seen a policeman respond. Hope that helps.

 

[Towers]

Of course, but such use should require a warrant. The police shouldn't be allowed to go on fishing expeditions just because they feel like it and the fact there now exists all this logged data means that they *can* do so, there needs to be a process and oversight.

Completely agree; absolutely.

You have clearly been ignoring all of those announcements and posters. Someone texts 61016. See it. Say it. Sorted.

Yes. And what percentage of texts do you reckon end up with BTP officers attending? Not a great many, I would think.

 

[joebassman]

What constitues a "pervy bloke stare?"

Seems a little ambigious to me. Is it just looking at someone too long, looking up their skirt, at their chest, making eye contact, giving eye expressions that they are interested in someone?

And then why is it assumed that just men can constitute this behaviour?

Are there not other groups of people who initiate sexual assults?

 

[43066]

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.

The police don’t generally actively monitor random innocent peoples’ activities looking for behaviours they consider somehow unusual. Why should they even know who you are or what your name is, unless there’s genuine suspicion you’ve committed a crime?

Where does this kind of thing end? Should the police be allowed to burst into your house whenever they want, to check what you’re up to? Or watch you through your smart phone/watch/TV camera? After all, if you’re doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, do you?

The police are bad enough at responding when actual crimes have already been committed. Perhaps they should focus on getting better at that, rather than asking for powers that sound like the fantasies of power-crazed authoritarians who’ve seen too many repeats of Judge Dredd and Minority Report.

What constitues a "pervy bloke stare?"

Seems a little ambigious to me. Is it just looking at someone too long, looking up their skirt, at their chest, making eye contact, giving eye expressions that they are interested in someone?

And then why is it assumed that just men can constitute this behaviour?

Are there not other groups of people who initiate sexual assults?

Good points.

 

[GB]

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.

Why would/should there be a threshold in the first place?

 

[Bertie the bus]

What constitues a "pervy bloke stare?"

Seems a little ambigious to me. Is it just looking at someone too long, looking up their skirt, at their chest, making eye contact, giving eye expressions that they are interested in someone?

And then why is it assumed that just men can constitute this behaviour?

Are there not other groups of people who initiate sexual assults?

We had this discussion not that long ago when Northern put up similar posters on trains. Basically, if your behaviour makes someone so uncomfortable they consider calling the police you need to think about changing it.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I don't agree with this idea and feel the police should be doing something worthwhile like tackling real crime; however I have nothing to hide and if they want to gain some excitement by tracking my movements on public transport, then I feel very sorry for them.

Bad enough when the police were walking through the train during the first lockdown demanding mask wearing or threatening to throw people off the train. Seriously, have they nothing better to do !?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the main concern here is how much a given Force can be trusted. The BTP doesn't seem to have a terrible reputation (other than for not being there when needed), but the Met for example does; in the context of what has happened in the recent past, we'd expect this to mean Black people are often stopped and questioned about their journey and white people not.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Of course, but such use should require a warrant. The police shouldn't be allowed to go on fishing expeditions just because they feel like it and the fact there now exists all this logged data means that they *can* do so, there needs to be a process and oversight.

With electronic systems - like Oyster in London - a condition of using it is that TfL can keep track of what you do and can let the police see the information without their needing a warrant. An anonymous, non-registered card, where you always top up with cash, of course avoids this; but that's not an option for concessionary cards. A friend was getting a concessionary Oyster for her school-age child, read "the small print", and discovered that his movements would be followable by the police without any prior suspicion, or any due process needed. There was no way round this, other than his having a non-concession card and paying more to travel.

Similarly, someone old enough to get concessionary travel, and who needs/wants to move around London, and who's not well off and hence needs to avail themselves of the concession, has a simple choice. Either don't travel, or accept that your movements are all monitored/monitorable by any authorities who want to. (Or try to fork out if you can, at the expense of other things you might want the money for.) There are non-wealthy oldsters in London who feel they're being treated like criminals wearing an electronic tag, just because they want to use public transport.

 

[AlterEgo]

What constitues a "pervy bloke stare?"

Suppose it's like civilisation. Hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.

 

[jfollows]

Yes, TFl does not state that the police require a warrant to get access to tracking information, but they do say (https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/privacy-and-cookies/oyster-card) that the information will only be supplied to the police on a case-by-case basis and not as part of a regular global suck of everyone's data as the police seem to want:

In some circumstances, disclosures of personal data to the police (and other law enforcement agencies) are permitted by data protection legislation, if they relate to the prevention or detection of crime and/or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Before any such disclosure takes place, the police are required to demonstrate that the personal data concerned will assist them in this respect. Each police request to TfL is dealt with on a strictly case-by-case basis to ensure that any such disclosure is lawful and in accordance with data protection legislation.

TfL may also receive or disclose personal information about customers in relation to certain emergency situations or other incidents that require an immediate response. Such events may include those involving public health, public safety or national security matters, when access to personal information is necessary to manage the incident. In some situations, we may also be required by law to disclose your personal data to the police or other enforcement, regulatory or Government body, upon a valid request to do so. These requests will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and take into account privacy considerations before a disclosure is made.

I may be wrong, but I've always got the impression that TFl are quite good at sticking to the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and being careful with the data on us that they hold. I could be mistaken in this, but when I've seen initiatives such as phone tracking they're quite keen to explain how the data isn't stored after use.

 

[DarloRich]

There are non-wealthy oldsters in London who feel they're being treated like criminals wearing an electronic tag, just because they want to use public transport.

They are being silly then! This is nonsense. I would go as far as it generating potentially monitorable data rather than actually monitored data.

I wonder if the same oldies like the Tesco Clubcard vouchers - they are generated by monitored data on your shopping behaviours. How do they feel about CCTV cameras on the bus or tube or in the bank? etc etc etc.

 

[Runningaround]

That's because the prevailing viewpoint on this forum is that all football fans are thugs who should be allowed nowhere near the rail network, or indeed society in general.

The Police and in the slightest bit interested in a trainspotters activities. if there's bee an incident then it use the data to track an possible offenders whereabouts. Just think if your face fits a description you can be questioned, asked what you are doing and where you've been. They won't need to now just look at the data and realise you weren't there and pool resources onto those that were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when football fans earn the railway a significant income, record crowds on the weekend in the EFL and that's despite the Rail Strike. Just think if more football fans started hiring coaches or pooling together to buy a minibus, how many ''why have the cut my rail service to Crewe and cut my spotting hours'' threads there will be.

 

[Runningaround]

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.

If you are that determined not be tracked, or live in fear that much Id be surprised if you leave the house. But just think if you are burgled or get your car pinched theirs technology out there to help you get it back.

 

[Davester50]

I wonder if the same oldies like the Tesco Clubcard vouchers - they are generated by monitored data on your shopping behaviours.

Are they routinely monitored by the Police, who have frequently been chastised recently for going after Hurty Words, but legal Tweets, and recording these as non-hate incidents?
Orwellian.

 

[Runningaround]

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.

If you fit the description of someone who's committed an offence then the cameras and tracking can tell the Police it's not you as you were nowhere near and won't bother you. But if none of this data is available to hand they may have to question you in public instead and ask where have you been today?

 

[the sniper]

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.”

Possibly just Geoff Marshall!

There would seem to be more obvious and fundamental issues that the BTP could be resourcing without scouring data to detect more. There could be uses for these powers, but D’Orsi doesn't seem to have sold them very well.

The drones to look for trespassers might be an idea, the current alternative is often resource exhausting ghost hunting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The drones to look for trespassers might be an idea, the current alternative is often resource exhausting ghost hunting.

I can't see a massive issue with that at all; under no circumstances (bar a serious accident) are you meant to be wandering all over the railway. I guess they could be programmed to just fly up and down sections of line and alert someone if a thermal imaging camera detects something big enough to be a person (anything else that big e.g. a deer or cow would be useful too as it may prevent an accident, so false positives are fine). It's only CCTV, really, just saving the cost of installing cameras all the way along the line.

 

[Western Sunset]

Suspect X was caught on CCTV at Purley buying a Zone 1-6 Travelcard. He caught a train to Tattenham Corner but didn't exit the station, or indeed the train. They were next observed at London Bridge, writing some figures down in a book. Later, CCTV caught them at the end of platform 10A at Stratford; a platform that sees little (if any) passenger traffic. Again they appeared to be writing something in a notebook. The suspect was at that location for almost two hours and was seen fumbling with something in their bag on a number of occasions. The suspect then appeared to travel via a rather convoluted route, next being seen at South Kenton. Again, there is no evidence that they left the station. Finally, the suspect was noticed, by many CCTV cameras, to be loitering at Paddington, walking from one platform to another without any apparent attempt at catching a train.

 

[DarloRich]

Are they routinely monitored by the Police, who have frequently been chastised recently for going after Hurty Words, but legal Tweets, and recording these as non-hate incidents?
Orwellian.

this makes no sense. What are you talking about?

OBVIOUSLY, club card vouchers are not monitored by the police but they are monitored very closely by Tesco who are a private company! Everyone seems happy to let Tesco ( and thier associates) know a great deal about about thier lives, monitor and use that data to retain custom and extract more money from your wallet. There doesn't seem to be much pushback on this. Commercial operations like Tesco know more about you than you do and use that data to control your spending habits. But hey, £5 off when you spend £50!

Yet the police potentially having access to your travel card data is the onset of the Stasi!

 

[Davester50]

this makes no sense. What are you talking about?

OBVIOUSLY, club card vouchers are not monitored by the police but they are monitored very closely by Tesco who are a private company! Everyone seems happy to let Tesco ( and thier associates) know a great deal about about thier lives, monitor and use that data to retain custom and extract more money from your wallet. There doesn't seem to be much pushback on this. Commercial operations like Tesco know more about you than you do and use that data to control your spending habits. But hey, £5 off when you spend £50!

Yet the police potentially having access to your travel card data is the onset of the Stasi!

You brought Tesco to the Party. What sense did you have introducing Tesco Vouchers then?
None.

And if you can't tell the difference between a Police out of control with Twitter spats, and a shop...
You've made it clear you're happy to hand over that data. Others see it as over-step.

 

[Bletchleyite]

this makes no sense. What are you talking about?

OBVIOUSLY, club card vouchers are not monitored by the police but they are monitored very closely by Tesco who are a private company! Everyone seems happy to let Tesco ( and thier associates) know a great deal about about thier lives, monitor and use that data to retain custom and extract more money from your wallet. There doesn't seem to be much pushback on this. Commercial operations like Tesco know more about you than you do and use that data to control your spending habits. But hey, £5 off when you spend £50!

Yet the police potentially having access to your travel card data is the onset of the Stasi!

I think there is a difference between a commercial arrangement whereby a supermarket offers me a wholly optional discount in return for having data for the specific purpose of advertising to me, and where a state wants the data in order to potentially accuse me of a crime.

In the former case the supermarket have effectively purchased the data from me, paying by way of the discounts offered (and I can choose if I wish to "sell" it or not by using a Clubcard or not doing so), in the latter case there's no option given.

If Police Forces behaved themselves, then I'd be in support of this - but you've seen what the Met has been found to have done of late, have you not?

Therefore, to manage this, my view would be "yes, but only on specific people with a Court order or warrant". No "big data" analysis.

 

[Davester50]

I think there is a difference between a commercial arrangement whereby a supermarket offers me a wholly optional discount in return for having data for the specific purpose of advertising to me, and where a state wants the data in order to potentially accuse me of a crime.

In the former case the supermarket have effectively purchased the data from me, paying by way of the discounts offered (and I can choose if I wish to "sell" it or not by using a Clubcard or not doing so), in the latter case there's no option given.

If Police Forces behaved themselves, then I'd be in support of this - but you've seen what the Met has been found to have done of late, have you not?

Therefore, to manage this, my view would be "yes, but only on specific people with a Court order or warrant". No "big data" analysis.

I agree completely with this.

 

[Trainbike46]

this makes no sense. What are you talking about?

OBVIOUSLY, club card vouchers are not monitored by the police but they are monitored very closely by Tesco who are a private company! Everyone seems happy to let Tesco ( and thier associates) know a great deal about about thier lives, monitor and use that data to retain custom and extract more money from your wallet. There doesn't seem to be much pushback on this. Commercial operations like Tesco know more about you than you do and use that data to control your spending habits. But hey, £5 off when you spend £50!

Yet the police potentially having access to your travel card data is the onset of the Stasi!

An important difference is that Tesco clubcard and similar schemes are explicitly opt-in. You can still use supermarkets without participating in the clubcard/nectar/etc. The police checking everyone's travel data for what they consider unusual behaviour would not operate on an explicit opt-in basis, and is therefore not at all comparable.

And a more key point: the fact that people are or are not monitored in one situation isn't grounds for introducing it in other situations as well