Beware the ATESDs and ALPRs, because Big Brother is watching—with cameras! The country is in a bit of an uproar over Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Devices (ATESDs) and Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), both of which use cameras to “read” passing cars and trucks, but put the huge amount of information gathered to different ends. One is a serious privacy concern, and the other can take money out of your pocket.
In Fairfield, Connecticut, July 14, a packed crowd gathered at Fairfield Warde High to protest the use of ATESDs, which have been installed near six schools in town and were already resulting in $65 first-offense fines ($50 plus a $15 processing fee). Second offenders have to pay $75. By the time of that public hearing, 75,000 vehicles had triggered the cameras in town. More than 7,300 warnings were issued on the first day of operation, before the fines started.
Fourteen other towns and cities in Connecticut have similar camera systems, and some have expanded since installation. These programs can be significant money makers for their towns. In its first official month, June, the Fairfield program took in $1.1 million. Officials, who say the money will go to supporting road safety, had actually expected up to $3.2 million (based on the 114,000 warnings issued in May). But (and the police and town cite this as proof the program is working) driver behavior changed significantly once the threat of actual fines was in place. By mid-June, Fairfield Police reported an 83 percent speeding reduction through the camera zones.
Jim Motavalli
The speed limit rules are confusing.
When Fairfield schools are in session, the speed limit in the zone is just 20 mph, and speed camera tickets are issued to motorists going 11 mph over that. With school out, a 25-mph limit is observed (and fines are imposed for 36 mph and over). The cameras operate 24/7. “We all want to live in safe communities with safe streets, but is surveillance technology and artificial intelligence needed to achieve this?” said Fairfield resident Chris Martin, to wild applause.
“We all want to live in safe communities with safe streets, but is surveillance technology and artificial intelligence needed to achieve this?”
The town adopted ATESDs as part of the global Vision Zero program (of Swedish origin, circa 1997), which aims to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes by 2034. Perhaps not coincidentally, Sweden’s Volvo also announced in 2007 and 2008 a program, originally Vision 2020, to eliminate serious injuries and deaths in its cars by 2020. Now its known as Safety Vision and is more open ended.
Jim Motavalli
The cameras are set up in school zones.
“This initiative supports making Fairfield’s streets safer for all users,” the town said. “Safe Speeds is a core principle of Vision Zero because humans are unlikely to survive high-speed crashes.” Fairfield Police Chief Mike Paris said on Facebook, “If these cameras cause drivers to think twice before speeding through our neighborhoods and school zones, then they are serving their purpose. At the end of the day, slowing down by a few minutes is a small inconvenience. Losing a life because of excessive speed is permanent.”
The brief against ALPRs is somewhat different, but related. These systems also use cameras to photograph cars, but as part of law enforcement. That’s drawn the attention of watchdogs like the American Civil Liberties Union, which said, “Little-noticed surveillance technology, designed to track the movements of every passing driver, is fast proliferating on America’s streets. Automatic license plate readers, mounted on police cars or on objects like road signs and bridges, use small, high-speed cameras to photograph thousands of plates per minute.”
The so-called Flock cameras (after the public safety company that makes them) use AI to capture a huge amount of data from passing cars, including make, model, color and identifying marks, such as dents or bumper stickers, which become searchable data points. The non-profit Deflock.org fights Flock cameras, claiming they “ignore the powerful tools police already have to track criminals, such as cell phone location data, creating a loophole that doesn’t require a warrant.”
Smith Collection/Gado//Getty Images
A Flock camera in California.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says ALPR data “can paint an intimate portrait of a driver’s life and even chill First Amendment-protected activity.” It can be used to “target drivers who visit sensitive places such as health centers, immigration clinics, gun shops, union halls, protests, or centers of religious worship.” Data collected can be shared with many local, state and federal agencies.
The ATESD cameras also gather data to check with the state Department of Motor Vehicles, but the personal data is deleted 30 days after the violation, according to the Fairfield Citizen.
Flock cameras can get it wrong, such as when auto journalist Joel Feder took a ride in a $155,000 Range Rover test car belonging to the manufacturer. (Note: Autoweek writers also review test cars.)
In the parking lot of the local Kohl’s in Minnesota, Feder was hemmed in by four cop cars. He and his wife were ordered out of the vehicle, patted down, and informed that the license plates on the car (34 10 DTM, a standard manufacturer’s designation) were stolen. Flock cameras led the police to Feder. It turns out that the Flock camera had confused the Range Rover’s plate with 34 03 DTM, which was entered on the National Crime Information Center database as missing.
The same thing happened to another car journalist, Tim Esterdahl, who was pulled over in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska driving another Range Rover—this one with 34 08 DTM. And it could well happen again elsewhere, maybe even to Autoweek, because our testers also have DTM plates. It’s perhaps a cliché to say that Big Brother is watching, but it seems to be literally true in this case.
Jim Motavalli is an auto writer and author (nine books) who contributes to Autoweek and Barron’s Mansion Global. He has written two books on electric cars, Forward Drive (2000) and High Voltage (2010), and hosts the Plugging In podcast.
Motavalli’s writing has appeared in the New York Times, CBS Moneywatch, Car Talk at NPR, Forbes, US News and World Report, Sierra Magazine, Audubon, and many more. In his spare time, he reviews books and jazz.
