Automatic Law Enforcement !

 "  Privacy "  means different things to many people and the state's Privacy Commissioner is questioning whether a camera trial that photographs both the number plate and the driver of every car passing two Sydney locations infringes that right.

That trial was intended to help stamp out drivers using mobile phones illegally.  The locations chosen were the M4 motorway at Prospect and Anzac Parade at Moore Park.  In the first twenty-five days in operation these cameras delivered high intensity surveillance face recognition of those driving 2.1 million vehicles.  Those using a mobile phone will simply receive a warning letter in the mail during this trial but the prospect of an automatic fine is simply awaiting the necessary legislation to pass through state parliament.

Camera detection to fine lawbreakers has long been legally operational in this state.  We have many fixed speed cameras and mobile cameras are used to damp down speed at accident hot spots. This is mainly old technology and it records the car and leaves the owner with the task of identifying who was the driver at the time of the infringement.  Camera technology has improved out of sight since that time.

This trial raisers the question of whether we have the right of privacy when we" break the law " ?  These high tech cameras can not only detect mobile phone use, they can also accurately determine if the driver or front seat passenger is using a seat belt.  Many with privacy concerns would find this surveillance intrusive.

Sooner or later the state may also move to install a regimen of time/distance control to curb speeding on highways, and this is already in place and in operation to monitor the speed of trucks and other heavy vehicles.  An overhead camera gantry records the time every vehicle passes beneath and compares this with the next checkpoint.   The computer calculates what time factor would be involved for that vehicle to cover that distance at the legal speed - and those arriving too early must be speeding and receive a fine in the mail.   It has the capacity to issue multiple fines for the same vehicle on the same day on state roads.

We accept police radar traps to monitor highway speed and there is nothing like a patrol car with its flashing lights to curb speed on a holiday weekend, but when law enforcement relates to artificial means of detecting a law breach we label that revenue raising.    It can be argued that if detection and a fine are the automatic consequence of slightly exceeding the speed limit we have no other option than to meticulously obey the law.   Otherwise, the demerit point system will lead to automatic license loss.

When this trial comes to an end the decision will be made by the politicians we sent to state parliament.  Law enforcement is an emotive issue and it needs to be balanced with privacy concerns. A lot will depend on whether a particularly horrible example of road carnage coincides with debate on the issue.   That could be the deciding factor  !