Page 3959 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
put out by the parliamentary committee—
ANPR, implemented in the manner conventional in, for example, the United Kingdom, generates a data trail for every vehicle that passes a control-point. This trail is attractive to all manner of organisations, in the public and private sectors alike. As a result, the pressure for function creep is enormous.
Actual privacy breaches are a great concern; but ANPR’s impacts go much further than that. The knowledge that it is undertaken shapes behaviour; indeed, even the suspicion that it may be undertaken creates a ‘chilling effect’. Clearly, there are benefits from such deterrent effects, such as when people are dissuaded from performing criminal acts because of the fear of being caught. On the other hand, the impact is indiscriminate, and is likely to chill a great deal of perfectly legal behaviour as well.
This may not be your intention, Mr Corbell, but it remains a concern that I do not believe has been adequately addressed.
As I said earlier, the government has said that the data of non-offending drivers will be stored for 30 days. I am not sure why the data would need to be stored for that long, and I am concerned that the systems in place cannot guarantee the deletion of the records. Again, I would like to see what work the government has done to address this concern by looking at the correspondence which should come up in an FOI request.
In May last year I uncovered a scandal whereby the names, ID numbers and salaries of 15,000 ACT public servants were in a common drive available to more than 20,000 territory public servants. If we cannot trust this government with the data it has currently got, why would we give it even more?
Point-to-point cameras have been tried before, most notably in Victoria. Cameras were introduced in Victoria in 2007, along a stretch of the Hume Highway. These cameras were then switched off in October last year after nine motorists were incorrectly issued with an infringement. A technical fault was blamed in this instance, a technical fault which continues to be the basis for switching these cameras off altogether.
Last but most definitely not least are the opinions of the general public, who have been very vocal when it comes to speed camera technology. The community is divided on the issue, and strong opinions are everywhere. In a University of Canberra report prepared for the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust titled Understanding driver culture—safe systems in the ACT, a community attitudinal study, CAS, in 2009 found:
In spite of early research suggesting some community support for the use of speed cameras, the cas study of 2009 indicates that the majority of Canberran drivers surveyed viewed speeding fines as revenue raising with a percentage prepared to agree it is “Okay to speed if driving safely”.
On talkback radio this morning, one caller said: “These are nothing more than a revenue raiser … and they are misused. Canberra is turning into a nanny state.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video