Inquiry into Automatic Number Plate Recognition Technology
The Chair
Travelsafe Committee
Parliament House
Dear Sir
Inquiry into Automatic Number Plate Recognition Technology
Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 requesting a submission from the Council for Civil Liberties on this issue.
As we understand it automatic number plate recognition technology involves using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the result of which will be a huge database of vehicle movements that will allow police and security services to analyse any journey made by a driver over several years by storing time, date and precise location of vehicles with the global positioning system. That this is what the committee is considering is confirmed by the material under heading 5 of the discussion paper.
The proposal to introduce automatic number plate recognition technology (“ANPR technology”) causes the Council grave concern.
Along with the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario[1] we believe that this proposal involves the collection of personal information which violates the right to privacy and the principles embodied in our Privacy Act.
These concerns are not limited to this Council. We draw the attention of the committee to the comments of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners in the United Kingdom[2] that there may well be human rights issues arising in connection with any use of private information to build up a picture of the movement of particular persons or vehicles. The Commissioners went on to note in paragraph 14.4 “existing legislation is not apt to deal with the fundamental problems to which the deployment of ANPR cameras gives rise”.
In its report on the Toronto Police Service[3], the Ontario Privacy Commissioner considered a system in which two video cameras are mounted on the roof of a police vehicle angled down to enable it to scan licence plate numbers of parked vehicles as the street sweeper slowly moves along the street. The purpose of this surveillance is to identify stolen vehicles.
Under the system discussed it was only if the officer locates a suspect number plate that the image of a licence number plate is saved to the hard drive of the onboard computer. Within 72 hours all existing scans are overwritten destroying all scanned licence plate numbers on the hard drive.[4] This system was not in any way linked to GPS.
The Commissioner considered[5] the practice complied with the relevant privacy legislation and produced benefits whilst having a minimal impact on privacy. However the Commission clearly expressed the view that the benefits that would result from using a GPS configured system was comparatively less important and posed a greater threat to privacy. It noted such a system would enable the police to collect a great wealth of potentially privacy invasive personal information.
Whilst the Council would not cavil with the view that the Ontario Commissioner took of the particular program, we note that the Commissioner would clearly be opposed to the system under discussion. Moreover, we would make a point beyond the brief of the Commissioner. We see these proposals as part of the development of what has been described as a surveillance society.
As the Victorian Privacy Commissioner noted[6]:
“I believe that…anonymity in a crowd is dying. It is draining away quickest in crowded places in urban and suburban areas but the trickle has begun in those places.
A gradual loss of this aspect of our privacy is a result of several factors which are developing at speed. The consequences for privacy and, more broadly, for other aspects of liberty are very significant depending on the way our society handles this trend.”
In fact as he noted this trend included the proliferation of surveillance cameras, the networking of surveillance cameras and the introduction of cameras that think, including ANPR.
Whilst the committee is only considering the use of ANPR in relation to traffic violations, in the Council’s experience, inevitably, when a data collection device is created it is not long before it is turned to other purposes. The tax file number is a classic example. Privacy Commissioner Karen Curtis[7] points out that when the tax file number first came into effect in 1988 the only penalty for not quoting it was that for some income, for example a dividend stream you made an interest free loan for less than a year to the tax office of the difference between the top marginal rate and the marginal tax rate you paid. She goes on to say, “It is now the case that some Australians are not able to survive without obtaining and quoting their TFN (for example to obtain unemployment benefits and a number of other interactions with Government). The function of a tax file number has moved from a purely taxation related function, as it was initially, to the present situation where it is used to cross match data relating to government assistance of various sorts.”
We would oppose the introduction of ANPR unless and until the privacy and civil liberties issues have been considered in detail and addressed comprehensively. We would respectfully suggest that this is beyond the purview of this committee.
We also endorse the comments contained in the submission on behalf of the Australian Privacy Foundation.
Should you wish to discuss this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on 3223 5939.
Yours faithfully
Michael Cope
President
For and on behalf of the
Queensland Council for Civil Liberties
23 January 2008
[1] Privacy investigation: The Toronto Police Services Use of Mobile Licence Plate Recognition Technology to find stolen vehicles April 29 2003
[2] Office of Surveillance Commissioners’ report 2006 HC 1298 at paragraph 14.3
[3] Opcit at pages 2 to 3
[4] Except for audit purposes. But in any event the data is destroyed within 7 days.
[5] Ibid page 10
[6] The Value of Privacy: A Law Week 2006 Address by Paul Chadwick 23 May 2006
[7] Address to the Second International Policing Conference Adelaide 3 November 2004 at page 8