TMCnet News

OPINION: Real issue isn't speed cameras' privacy violation
[January 25, 2009]

OPINION: Real issue isn't speed cameras' privacy violation


(The Sun (Yuma, AZ) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Jan. 25--There is continuing hubbub over the new photo speed cameras the state has put on roadways around Arizona with the latest controversy involving a claimed loss of driver privacy.

Arizona lawmakers, some of whom had approved the devices last year, were surprised to learn that the speeding cameras take images not only of violators of the law but also of everyone driving down the road.

Not only that, but images from the fixed and mobile cameras are retained for 90 days by the private company that has the contract with the state for the speed detectors. That information could possibly be used to create databases where the movement of individuals -- or at least license plates -- could be tracked.



A Department of Public Safety spokesman says there is a legitimate reason to retain information -- it can be used to track down hit and run drivers or other law violators. Lt. James Warriner said the images are used only for law enforcement purposes.

Some privacy advocates and lawmakers remain concerned, however, saying it violates privacy and could be abused by others who get access to the information. It adds fuel to a current legislative effort to outlaw the speed cameras from state roads.


Although the current controversy is focused on the state cameras, I wonder if it also exists for traffic violations tracked by cameras in various cities. Perhaps questions will now also be raised about those.

Concern about privacy is understandable. Most of us want to maintain our privacy. But I also believe that barn door was left open a long time ago. One can hardly go anywhere -- whether it is to a shopping center or church -- anymore without being under camera surveillance and that is likely to grow as our nation becomes increasingly concerned about security issues.

Should one expect privacy on the roadways when it exists practically nowhere else? That's unlikely. Our home is the only place we can probably expect true privacy, and even then there may be the prying eyes of neighbors.

The biggest issue with the speed camera program -- and one which justifies its end -- has nothing to do with privacy. I wrote about this issue last June in The Sun when the program was being created.

Former Gov. Janet Napolitano made it clear when she authorized the program that it was about a lot more than law enforcement or safety. One of its major goals was to collect revenue for the cash-strapped state. In fact, it was specifically structured to encourage this.

For example, it was made easy for violators to pay their fine without further consequences -- no penalty points on their drivers licenses and no reporting of the violation to insurance companies, which might increase the speeder's insurance rates. Just pay up and move along, perhaps to the next speeding violation.

The Goldwater Institute, a public interest group, quoted newly-elected Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu on this issue this week. Babeu opposes the speed cameras for a couple of reasons but at the top of his list is their use to "create money for government," which he says has a corrupting influence.

He is right. If a government body is short of money, what is to prevent officials from demanding more enforcement to get more money, or perhaps redefining the crime to achieve more violations?

For example, in the case of speeding, authorities commonly establish a certain amount in excess of the posted speed limit as the point where tickets are issued. This is done to insure there is no dispute that the person was speeding and to account for minor malfunctions with speedometers.

If authorities decide to shave some of that cushion off speeding violations, then it is likely there will be more tickets -- and more revenue. This is not mere speculation. Some states and communities have been infamous for being "speed traps" that manipulated speeding rules to collect money.

The Goldwater Institute also pointed out there is nothing to prevent government bodies from shifting law enforcement resources from crimes that do not generate revenue to those that do -- even though the non-revenue crimes may be far more important to citizens.

The purpose of law enforcement to prevent individuals from inflicting harm on others. It is also a way to enforce rules on the use of public areas -- like highways. However, using law enforcement as a cash cow is not a proper function.

Privacy is pretty much a lost battle, but we should fight to keep our laws from being turned into revenue generators for the government.

--

Terry Ross is director of The Sun's News and Information Center. E-mail him at [email protected] or phone him at 539-6870.

To see more of The Sun or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.yumasun.com/.
Copyright (c) 2009, The Sun, Yuma, Ariz.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email [email protected], call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]