Traffic cameras open door for more invasive surveillance
[align=left]Traffic cameras open door for more invasive surveillance[/align]
February 9th, 2006
[align=left]Jonathan McGlumphy, regular columnist and president of the Libertarians at Virginia Tech[/align]
Anyone who has lived in Blacksburg for more than a few weeks will notice the cameras that loom ominously over their heads at every traffic light. What do those cameras do?
Are they to catch drivers who run red lights? Speeders? Or are they there so the Blacksburg police can monitor people to watch for criminal activity?
In actuality, the cameras do none of these things ?? yet. Currently they serve two purposes. One is a traffic study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Think of the cameras as data collectors in a life-sized laboratory. Secondly, the cameras replace the metal strips traditionally used as a signal for a light to change from red to green when there is a car waiting. Using cameras instead of metal strips means that not only does the town avoid having to cut into the asphalt, but smaller vehicles such as motorcycles and bicycles can cause the light to change.
So why don??t the police use them for law enforcement purposes? Because they are legally prohibited from doing so. The Commonwealth of Virginia is known as a Dillon Rule state, which means that the power of local governments is strictly regulated by the General Assembly. So for Blacksburg to use its cameras for law enforcement, it would have to get permission from Richmond first.
At this writing, there is a bill in the House of Delegates that would do just that. HB718 would grant the authority to any locality to install cameras at intersections for the purposes of catching drivers who run red lights. It??s pretty simple how it works: You run a red light, the camera takes a picture of your license plate, and you get a ticket in the mail.
On the surface this sounds like a great way to cut down on red light running, but let??s get a little deeper. First off, what if you??re not driving? Remember that the cameras take pictures of the license plate, not the driver. Suppose you loan your car to a friend or relative and they run a red light. The ticket will still come to your house. You would now have to spend time and effort (and possibly go to court) to prove your innocence. That sounds like it violates our society??s doctrine of innocent until proven guilty.
Then there??s the question of what ends these red light cameras would really achieve. While proponents of such devices are quick to point out the safety aspect, could it be that maybe, just maybe, the true motivation for red light cameras has less to do with safety and more to do with money?
To make an analogy, why do cops sit on the side of the highway on bright, sunny days when there??s not much traffic and pull people over for speeding? Is it safety, or revenue?
I??m willing to bet most people will say ??revenue.? Red light cameras would be no different in that they are cash cows for revenue-strapped localities. Washington, D.C. collects over $16 million from its red light cameras, New York City at least $9 million. Also, the camera manufacturers frequently get a cut of the fines issued. Do we really want even more corporations in bed with government?
More sinister, though, is the idea of cameras being used to monitor people in their daily activities. Fortunately, HB718 does not authorize any law enforcement purpose other than catching red light runners. However, it would open the door to other possibilities in the future. Remember that politicians and police are just as fallible ?? and just as corruptible ?? as any other human beings. Once the cameras are authorized for even the slightest of law enforcement purposes, it won??t be long before some power-hungry bureaucrat wants to put them to more Soviet-style use.
That may sound far-fetched, but it??s not. Major cities in the United States such as Chicago and Tampa already have thousands of police cameras set up for general surveillance. We are told that it??s to make people safe. Yet London, England has the same sort of city-wide surveillance system, and that didn??t stop terrorists from bombing the Underground last year.
We should ask ourselves if we??re willing to let Big Brother watch our every move in exchange for a false sense of security. And while I do realize that something as simple as red light cameras does not instantly put us into George Orwell??s ??1984,? we cannot forget that personal liberties are never taken away all at once, but in small increments over a period of time.
From due process to revenue to Big Brother, there are several compelling reasons to avoid red light cameras, all of which outweigh any possible safety benefit. The General Assembly should strike down any such attempts to implement them.
