Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: OT: London Cops seem to have a $54K time problem

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: OT: London Cops seem to have a $54K time problem

 
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2012
On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
> <
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1213897.html
>


The speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
standards, a Timex does not.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
On 2012-01-19 00:41:58 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
>>
>>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
>>> <
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1213897.html
>>>

>
> The
>>>

>> speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
>> standards, a Timex does not.

>
> ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
> time standards be vital to a beat cop?
> A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
> sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
> use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.
> I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
> exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
> xxx hours I......".
> Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
> a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
> such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
> time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
> the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch. Also if
> the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
> patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
> ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.
>
> Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
> wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
> to have the time whispered in my ear.
> In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
> is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
> should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
> 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
> will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
> "speaking clock" service.
>
> ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
> generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
> voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".


I've mentioned the traceability issue before. A vital piece of evidence
for the prosecution was the time of a call to the emergency services,
which as we all know is electronically recorded and time-stamped to the
second. The defence asked for proof that the time-stamp was accurate;
insufficient proof could be given so the evidence was dismissed and the
prosecution failed.

It didn't matter that it was obvious the time-stamp was accurate enough
for the purpose, obvious does not equal proof.

As to the time on cell-phones, most are highly inaccurate - the syncing
to network time doesn't work on two of the major networks that I know
of. My last phone drifted by about 5 minutes per month.

The call cost of 31 pence is totally insignificant compared to the cost
of the task requiring the call. Had the $54K been expressed as
percentage of total operating cost, you would've realized this point.
As usual, the media cherry picks data for the purpose of ****-stirring
rather than providing meaningful information.

If you spent some time working with London's Met. Police, you would
find them to be quite the opposite of "retarded".

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:41:58 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
>>
>>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
>>> <
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1213897.html

>
>The
>>>

>> speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
>> standards, a Timex does not.

>
>...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
>time standards be vital to a beat cop?


What surprised me was the calls to the Speaking Clock cost 31 pence
each. There is no charge for land-line calls to "Time" where I live.
There is no charge for cell phone calls, but the call uses minutes.

Assuming that the London Met force has some requirements based on
British laws that we don't know about, I'm willing to accept the
statement that there are "evidential and operational reasons" for
officers and staff to need to know the exact time when the report is
written.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
>sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
>use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.



Clueless cops? If police recruitment continues to accept so many of
below average intellect, clueless cops are going to be a problem.

Last year I attended a police training school and was chatting to one
of the senior training officers over lunch. He said he had found our
course one of the most stimulating he had ever run because we learnt
far more quickly than the officers he normally dealt with. Each day,
we completed before lunch what officers often failed to learn in a
day, so he took the course much further than it usually went.

I asked what the force required of recruits in the way of educational
attainment. He just laughed, and said that he hoped that, one day in
the future, the recruits might have an average IQ of 90. I asked what
it was now and he just shrugged, and smiled. Everyone attending that
course had a university degree, which probably explains why we made
comparatively rapid progress.

I realise that there has to be a range of available employment for
people of below average intellect, but I would have thought that
average intelligence should be a minimum requirement for police work.

As for the Speaking Clock, when the telephone service was publicly
owned, the Speaking Clock was a free call. Many people seem not to
have gotten around to the idea that, with all telephone providers now
in private hands, the service now carries a charge.

It isn't only the police - the government Meteorological Office got a
bill for GBP 35,000 - about US $53k.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
On 2012-01-19 03:08:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2012-01-18 17:55:34 -0800, Pete A said:
>
>> On 2012-01-19 00:41:58 +0000, Savageduck said:
>> [...]
>> I've mentioned the traceability issue before. A vital piece of evidence
>> for the prosecution was the time of a call to the emergency services,
>> which as we all know is electronically recorded and time-stamped to the
>> second. The defence asked for proof that the time-stamp was accurate;
>> insufficient proof could be given so the evidence was dismissed and the
>> prosecution failed.

>
> ...and why wouldn't the emergency services communications center, or
> dispatch computers not be synced with a reliable time server?


The case I was speaking of was before fully auditable time services
were installed.

> For the UK they might consider;
> < http://www.pool.ntp.org/zone/uk >
> or
> < http://www.timetools.co.uk/ntp-serve...-server-uk.htm >


You are kidding, aren't you? These servers are free for use by the
public, their guarantee of service matches their price.


> While defense attorneys in the UK are probably as diligent and
> aggressive as the variety found in California, a call to emergency
> services, 911 here or 999 for you is going to have an admissible
> timeline established by the time server calibrated computers in the
> communications center, which does not have to be verified by a call to
> the "speaking clock".


Correct.


> The issue seems to be officers making these calls not communications
> center dispatchers.


Yes.


> If you know of a case which was dismissed, resulting in a failed
> prosecution due to a failure to make that call to the "Speaking clock"
> please cite it in some way. Otherwise it seems like speculation on your
> part.


No, I said there was insufficient proof that the timestamp was
accurate. This case was a wake-up call (literally!) to install
_auditable_ time services not only in communications centres, but also
in commerce.

There's a huge difference between syncing a device to a known reference
source of time and being able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that
the device was accurate at the moment of time in dispute.

To illustrate the point: a hand-held GPS receiver is synced to the most
accurate source of time and position we have, yet we all know how
dishonest they can be. Much cause for reasonable doubt.


> A reporting police officer is not going to be required to cite time
> exact to the second, not even the picky London Metropolitan Police.


You are confusing accuracy with auditablity.


>> It didn't matter that it was obvious the time-stamp was accurate enough
>> for the purpose, obvious does not equal proof.

>
> see above.
>
>> As to the time on cell-phones, most are highly inaccurate - the syncing
>> to network time doesn't work on two of the major networks that I know
>> of. My last phone drifted by about 5 minutes per month.

>
> Then you you must have a weird bunch of network carriers.


Yep.

> with the various cell phones I have used over the last 20 odd years I
> have not experienced the sort of discrepancy you describe. Right now my
> cell phone, an iPhone with service from Verizon has a time which seems
> to be accurately synced with my wireless atomic wall clock which gets a
> signal from Golden Colorado, and the Mac I am typing this on, which
> gets its signal from Apple's Cupertino time server, that is 19:04 PST,
> and I haven't had to adjust any of them.
>
> My analog wrist watch does lose about 45 seconds a week an I make an
> adjustment every 10-14days.


Ever tried using your wristwatch assertion as evidence that is beyond
reasonable doubt? It wouldn't work here.


>> The call cost of 31 pence is totally insignificant compared to the cost
>> of the task requiring the call. Had the $54K been expressed as
>> percentage of total operating cost, you would've realized this point.
>> As usual, the media cherry picks data for the purpose of ****-stirring
>> rather than providing meaningful information.

>
> That low cost of the individual call is just a factor in the
> rationalization that the cost is negligible, which as the accumulated
> figure demonstrates it isn't.


The accumulated cost of, say, officers stopping to wipe their nose
during cold weather could equally make headline news. As could the cost
of pencils and notebooks.


>> If you spent some time working with London's Met. Police, you would
>> find them to be quite the opposite of "retarded".

>
> Hyperbole on my part. However I would imagine that the London
> Metropolitan Police cover the same range of intellect and mental acuity
> to be found in any para-military law enforcement organization. I have
> had some extraordinarily bright individuals work for me, and they
> offset the unbelievable idiocy of others who for some inexplicable
> reason made it through the various law enforcement academies.


Fortunately, my experience is very different from yours.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
"Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
[]
> The UK police would do well to explore how GPS receivers that they
> already own could save them money on time stamping - as would most
> networked PC's that they already have if properly set to sync the time.
> For Windows, OS X and Linux this is usually a default.


... but aren't some phones (possibly Android) 15 seconds out because they
are on GPS time, and not UTC?

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
On Jan 19, 12:41*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
> On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

>
> >> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
> >> <
> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...litan-police-c....

>
> The
>
>
>
> > speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
> > standards, a Timex does not.

>
> ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
> time standards be vital to a beat cop?
> A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
> sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
> use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.


Unless it's to cover themselves.
In court a policeman might be asked at what time did you see the
accused
do x y z, and how do you know what time it was.
"I looked at my phone2 is all very well but when at the time or the
incident
or after, dialing the 123 (if that;s still the code) can be very
useful to anyone
not just because of the time but they fact you have a record of what
you did at that time.
My friend HTC android 2.3 is always about 5 mins fast.
And using GPS someone might even be able to fuind oput where you
actually were at that toime rather than
were yuo say you were.
Of course what should really happen is that a number should be used
that can tell you then time and record
where you are as far as useful to the police, they should have their
own number for such things.



> I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
> exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
> xxx hours I......".


And I wonder how many times those given times have been wrong.
You only have to be out by a few miniutes to miss a flight or train.

> Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
> a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
> such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
> time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
> the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch.


Which is good isn't it. I'd like to be able to trust all cops, but if
5 or 10mins
can make the differnce between being at the scene of a crime and not
being their
then the report that the4 police use could be very important.
But I am suspicious/curious as to why it wass used as often as it
was.



> Also if
> the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
> patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
> ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.


exacly anothyer device has recorded the time other than the 'brain' of
the cop.

>
> Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
> wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
> to have the time whispered in my ear.


So you've never been accused of lying about the time an incident took
place.

> In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
> is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
> should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
> 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
> will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
> "speaking clock" service.


I;d agree but what of proof....

>
> ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
> generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
> voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".


But the cops off on an extended lunch break and didnt; get to the
scene of teh crime
until 13:00, but he said he was there at 12:46 as he phjimed TIM.
which was dialed
at 13:00 not 12:46.



>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012011908251899097-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2012-01-19 06:08:10 -0800, "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> []
>>> The UK police would do well to explore how GPS receivers that they
>>> already own could save them money on time stamping - as would most
>>> networked PC's that they already have if properly set to sync the
>>> time. For Windows, OS X and Linux this is usually a default.

>>
>> .. but aren't some phones (possibly Android) 15 seconds out because
>> they are on GPS time, and not UTC?
>>
>> David

>
> For the most part 15 seconds is not going to win or lose any criminal,
> or civil court case.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck


True!

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:09:36 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-01-19 09:10:25 -0800, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Jan 19, 12:41*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <(E-Mail Removed)>

>> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
>>>
>>>>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
>>>>> <
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...litan-police-c..

>> .
>>> ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
>>> time standards be vital to a beat cop?


The whole concept of the need for to-the-minute-time on a police
report is ridiculous to me. What time is recorded? The time the unit
arrives at the location? The time the patrol officers made to the
door and knocked? The time they gained entrance to the part of the
scene where the incident was taking place or had taken place?

That's a span of several minutes. "We arrived on the scene at about
4:20 PM" would be realistically acceptable. The problem is, lawyers
don't accept "realistically acceptable". They would use discrepancies
of minutes to challenge the veracity of the reporting officer.

What if there's a chase...a suspect runs away from the location? What
is the accurate time involved? When the officer saw the guy? When
the officer took him down? When the officer got him back to the unit
and in the back seat and cuffed? Again, several minutes can elapse.

Changing subjects slightly...."beat cop"? How many cities still have
"beat cops"? I think the only beat cops left are those taking on the
role of "Officer Krupke" in staged musicals.



>>> A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
>>> sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
>>> use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.

>>
>> Unless it's to cover themselves.

>
>All they have to do to cover themselves is their job.
>
>> In court a policeman might be asked at what time did you see the
>> accused
>> do x y z, and how do you know what time it was.
>> "I looked at my phone2 is all very well but when at the time or the
>> incident
>> or after, dialing the 123 (if that;s still the code) can be very
>> useful to anyone
>> not just because of the time but they fact you have a record of what
>> you did at that time.
>> My friend HTC android 2.3 is always about 5 mins fast.
>> And using GPS someone might even be able to fuind oput where you
>> actually were at that toime rather than
>> were yuo say you were.

>
>All irrelevant once the incident is fully investigated and reports are
>written. Context is everything.
>
>> Of course what should really happen is that a number should be used
>> that can tell you then time and record
>> where you are as far as useful to the police, they should have their
>> own number for such things.

>
>...and in my experience they do.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
>>> exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
>>> xxx hours I......".

>>
>> And I wonder how many times those given times have been wrong.
>> You only have to be out by a few miniutes to miss a flight or train.

>
>...but that is a flight or train, and if you are going to cut things
>that close you have other issues to deal with.
>
>>
>>> Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
>>> a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
>>> such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
>>> time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
>>> the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch.

>>
>> Which is good isn't it. I'd like to be able to trust all cops, but if
>> 5 or 10mins
>> can make the differnce between being at the scene of a crime and not
>> being their
>> then the report that the4 police use could be very important.

>
>There are less expensive methods of policing the police.
>
>> But I am suspicious/curious as to why it wass used as often as it
>> was.

>
>That was my issue.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also if
>>> the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
>>> patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
>>> ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.

>>
>> exacly anothyer device has recorded the time other than the 'brain' of
>> the cop.

>
>Yup.
>>
>>>
>>> Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
>>> wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
>>> to have the time whispered in my ear.

>>
>> So you've never been accused of lying about the time an incident took
>> place.

>
>You might say I have been an expert witness, and while I have been
>subject to cross examination many times, keeping thing simple and
>factual is the best method of dealing with accusatory innuendo.
>
>>
>>> In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
>>> is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
>>> should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
>>> 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
>>> will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
>>> "speaking clock" service.

>>
>> I;d agree but what of proof....

>
>See below.
>>
>>>
>>> ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
>>> generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
>>> voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".

>>
>> But the cops off on an extended lunch break and didnt; get to the
>> scene of teh crime
>> until 13:00, but he said he was there at 12:46 as he phjimed TIM.
>> which was dialed
>> at 13:00 not 12:46.

>
>Witnesses, even cops can be shaky on exact time, and that is why few
>first responders in my experience, are going to report anything other
>than approximate times.
>In the scenario you have proposed stating that he/she arrived at the
>scene at approximately 12:46 or 13:00, or even 13:05 would both suffice
>for an initial report. The chronology of events on scene can be pinned
>down later by referring to communications center logs, which would be
>time stamped.
>So there is nothing wrong with initially using approximately 12:46 as
>an arrival time. once he/she have advised the communications
>center/dispatcher that they are on scene, that communication would
>establish the official time on scene which can be added to a later
>supplemental report. (more on this below)
>Testimony could well go go something along these lines, "I arrived on
>scene at approximately 12:46 hours. Once the scene was secured dispatch
>informed me that my exact time on scene was 13:00 hours."
>
>In the USA we have this thing called the "Ten-Code" which is employed
>by 99.99% of law enforcement agencies, together with "plain talk" radio
>communication for those not familiar with the full "Ten-Code".
>Calling with his/her call sign, for the last 6 years of by career mine
>was "Charlie 2 Alpha" and saying as it would have been in my case,
>"Charlie 2 Alpha, 10-97". This would have advised dispatch and any
>other responders that I was on scene and would have effectively time
>stamped that arrival without me even having to look at my watch.
>
>All the time befuddled officer would have to do to get a time check is
>to call "10-35", this is the "Ten-Code" for a "time check", on his
>radio and there will be a response, usually from dispatch, but
>sometimes with an element of "raised eyebrow" kidding from peers.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
NM5K
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2012
On 1/19/2012 12:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:

>
> In the USA we have this thing called the "Ten-Code" which is employed by
> 99.99% of law enforcement agencies, together with "plain talk" radio
> communication for those not familiar with the full "Ten-Code".


I guess Houston is the .01 percent.. The city police here do
not use ten codes at all.. It's pretty much all plain speech here,
and has been that way for years. Also, they now use the computer
for quite a few things, "box" in HPD language, to reduce radio traffic.
I can't remember if Harris County uses ten codes or not.. Maybe..
But I hardly listen to them any more as they have gone to trunked
systems, and I don't use a trunk tracking radio.
HPD is still on regular ole 460 mhz. Which I can receive on most
all of my UHF capable ham radios, which have wide band receivers.
Here, if an officer were say on a holdup alarm, and arrived on the
scene, they would just say, "15E20 arrived." as an example.
Which like you say, is automatically time stamped by the recording.
I suspect any chatter on the computer to the dispatcher is time stamped
also.








 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: OT: London Cops seem to have a $54K time problem Bruce Digital Photography 4 02-01-2012 02:35 PM
Re: OT: London Cops seem to have a $54K time problem Pete A Digital Photography 26 01-28-2012 11:06 AM
Re: OT: London Cops seem to have a $54K time problem Pete A Digital Photography 2 01-22-2012 05:31 AM
HELP! Again. I seem to have some padding I can't get rid of and a PHP problem. Mike Barnard HTML 50 03-28-2008 04:51 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: COPS: SHOTS FIRED, COPS: CAUGHT IN THE ACT, and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 04-15-2004 09:04 AM



Advertisments