By: Marielle Bautista
One of the significant topics we have discussed in class is the legitimacy of surveillance tools. Surveillance entails the invasive, meticulous observation of people with the purpose of channeling their behavior. It is integrated into all aspects of our daily lives so that we are in constant fear that our actions must abide by the law. While surveillance techniques can prove to provide protection and ensure safety, they can be seen in a negative light. Some issues include a minimization of public accountability, increase in marginalization of various groups in society, invasion of privacy, and growth of market values. Within this essay, I will analyze an article in the SFGate which questions the legitimacy of red-light surveillance cameras and I’ll argue that they should remain intact to keep the roads safe.
Last week, SF Gate reported the arrest of the St. Louis councilman Joe Brazil for the non-payment of a red-light violation and absence from the court trial. Brazil argued that these cameras should be removed because Missouri law does not add penalty points to his driver’s license for such offenses. He also protested that police are wasting time and energy arresting citizens for these traffic violations. Brazil’s reasoning is flawed because he does not take into account drivers’ safety and the prevention of accidents. He merely measures the legitimacy of the surveillance cameras by the severity of the violation. He thinks that the power he holds as a politician will allow him to evade vital traffic regulations.
The laxity of Missouri law shows that the perceived effectiveness of surveillance also depends on the context of the situation. A red light violation in California would cost a driver $500 and the requirement to attend traffic school. Our state’s traffic laws not only deter you with the risk of a hefty fine, but also secure conformity to codes of conduct on the road by requiring you to attend traffic school for violations. The red-light cameras are central tools of social control.
As we have discussed in class, surveillance techniques have become increasingly high tech in this new information age. The red-light cameras snap a picture of the driver’s face and can detect whether the driver matches the owner of the license plate. Arnold Schwarzenegger hopes to enhance the cameras so it will serve a dual purpose of catching those who run red-lights and those who are also exceeding the speed limit. Gilliom’s book SuperVision explains how we have to be more cautious and aware that surveillance may replace in-person reprimands. Rather than being approached by a cop for speeding and having the opportunity to negotiate and get the ticket waived, we will automatically have an expensive ticket mailed to us for our actions caught on the red-light/speeding cameras.
What is compelling about St. Louis is that these surveillance tools have actually spurred a wide-spread debate. Opponents argue that companies which establish the cameras make profit out of the tickets issued. They say it is unfair for citizens to finance this useless installation. Again, however, they do not take into account the benefit of securing the safety of drivers and pedestrians. When drivers know there are cameras around them they are much more likely to drive carefully, follow the traffic lights, and avoid injuring themselves and others on the road. The youtube video attached includes a CBS report on the effectiveness of red-light cameras in ensuring public safety.
I think you're right because after the cameras were installed, I always made sure to stop fully at red lights and was less likely to try to make a yellow light. However, there is one implication that occurred to me last year. I ran a red light by a few seconds, but because I was wearing sunglasses and the picture was blurry, the police were unable to get a solid case on me. So then the private companies that own and install the cameras sent me a fake ticket to see if I would admit to my guilt without a legitimate ticket. It had a black and white photo of me, but on the back, it stated in bold letters, "PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE POLICE DEPT. OR THE COUNTY COURT." On the bottom portion, there was a section where it told me to input my information (address, birthday, DL#, etc) and to check the box if I accept the charges. It seemed off to me so I did not do anything. A few days later, my mom got a real ticket which gave her a specific date for when to go in for court and the span of time she had to respond to the ticket. The pictures were in full color and the formatting was different as well. Puzzled, I researched online and it turns out that when the public law enforcement does not have a strong enough case to pin the violation on the driver, they will leave it to and allow the private company to try and trick the driver into admitting to the violation so that they can still profit. Sorry for the long comment but I thought it was interesting because it was an instance where the lines between public and private policing meshed. Because the private company is not constrained under the same regulations, they are able to - like the Santa Cruz Boardwalk's private police - maneuver their policing actors around the usual restrictions imposed on state agents in order to acquire the end goal.
ReplyDelete- Aya Kanda
You made a really great point Aya. I actually read a similar article to your story that talked about how police send "snitch tickets" to vehicle owners when they can't match the license plate to the picture of the driver committing the traffic violation. They pressure the individual to turn in the one who indeed ran the red light. I don't think it is fair that public police use private cops to gather facts in such a manipulative manner. -Marielle
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarielle and Aya, great job. I would like to add to your discussion by pointing out that variations of these tactics are being used by the transportation authority as well. I firsthand experienced this last fall. At the north side intersection of Telegraph and Bancroft Ave in front of Sproul Plaza, I was dropped off one morning. My partner literally stopped for two minutes as I gathered my belongings. Less than one week later I had received a ticket in the mail from AC Transit for $250 plus a $12 processing fee. It listed that I had violated the California Vehicle Code/ Berkeley Municipal Code for stopping in a bus zone. I thought to myself how did they know? No one came to my car and I had not received a ticket on my windshield. Like I said my partner was driving and we had stopped for two minutes max. I researched what rights I had including going back to the site and checking for posted signs. For sure there was a sign posted but in a place hard to see from where were.
ReplyDeleteNext, I checked what appeal process was in place for challenging such a ticket. I learned that while I had 21 days to contest (from the day the ticket was issued) if a review finds the registered owner at fault then he/she would need to pay the fine before requesting and administrative review. Failure to the pay fine even if it is being contested would result in a doubling of the fine and a hold on the DMV registration on the vehicle.
What the heck is going on I thought. How is this even legal? Still to this day I am not sure how they saw me because there was not one AC Transit parking enforcement officer around. What I learned in the process is that private parking enforcement companies are contracted with various agencies of the city. This enables them with the technology to use cameras, physical tickets, and DMV registration information to find the driver and hold him/her accountable. This forces us to comply with the codes of conduct and ultimately shape or driving and parking behavior. I found an interesting blog site that is all about AC Transit scams. It is an interesting read.
Bottom-line…someone is tracking us and even if we can see neither them nor their surveillance equipment legally we are held responsible. In addition, appeals processes are so lengthy and difficult to navigate that most of us just pay the fine to be done with it.
AC Transit: http://www.actransit.org/faq/what-do-i-do-if-i-receive-a-citation-for-parking-in-an-ac-transit-bus-zone/
Blog site: http://actransitdrama.blogspot.com/2009/07/ac-transit-bus-zone-parking-ticket.html
Marielle, great job in tackling the issue of red light surveillance cameras. I think it is necessary that surveillance cameras be used to prevent accidents and increase drivers safety. In article that I read in the LA Times, the LAPD cited a 62% drop in red-light-related collisions at the intersections with cameras. Knowing that there are cameras and people watching your every move helps people regulate themselves. This goes back to Bentham's Panopticon in which people follow the rules because of an invisible omnipresence. However, the city is thinking of installing cameras for the public safety in public arenas/areas such as parks and police cars. What do you think about this?
ReplyDeleteAndres Diaz
Great job, Marielle, for discussing the funding source behind red-light surveillance cameras. Partnership between public and private traffic law enforcement is slowly growing. Because many local and state governments lack the resources to install these cameras, some enter contractual agreements with private firms to install and maintain camera systems at intersections and along roadways. Once a traffic violation is recorded, these firms mail citations to the address listed under the vehicle's license plate. The ability to do so requires public law enforcement to share its information database with private firms. Private firms should not have access to this information, which could be abused for other purposes. Public law enforcement agencies should not violate the trust citizens place upon their surveillance systems to install additional cameras. There must be another way.
ReplyDeleteSalena Tiet
Good tie to the reading in "Supervision." In Arizona, the State installed devices like this on all of the freeways that ring Phoenix Metro. People reacted severely to them with local media showing citizens stopping and taking out axes to destroy them. While they did slow drivers and reduce serious accidents, the AZ Legislature banned them from many of the freeways. Speeding is back!
ReplyDeleteReally great discussion involving red light surveillance. I personally agree that the cameras help maintain a safe society and have also reduced the amount of those who choose to violate the law. Even if every violation is not caught by these surveillance cameras, the fact that people are aware of surveillance cameras do make them second guess speeding, running red lights, and breaking the law in any other way. This surveillance method acts similarly to our panoptican discussion in which people naturally regulate their behavior because they always imagine they may be watched at that moment. Traffic violations are down because people believe they are constantly being watched by surveillance cameras.
ReplyDeleteThe de-personalization of surveillance tactics is important, and you do a good job highlighting it. De-personalization is important because people can not be everywhere, but technology is ubiquitous; this is crucial to internalizing the gaze of the guard, as it occurs in Bentham’s Panopticon. The de-personalization is crucial to avoiding blind spots. Is the increasing use of technological surveillance for traffic violations in some ways also like James Scott’s bumbling power of the state; has it made its legitimacy vulnerable to the blind spots of surveillance? If someone commits a traffic violation but is not caught does he feel less obligated to accept his guilt because he was not caught? Isn’t this a form of resisting the legitimacy of the surveillance mechanism? Exploiting the loopholes of surveillance mechanisms may make those surveilled less willing to accept their violations and consequences when they are not caught which would reveal that the gaze of the guard has not been internalized by some, it is merely being avoided.
ReplyDeleteChristina A. Henriquez
Wow, your post gave me a new analytical lens on red-light surveillance. I only read a few of the other comments, so sorry if I say something redundant. The whole time I was reading this post, I kept being reminded of the panopticon idea - that hidden, covert, impersonal monitoring system that can watch everybody while paying no particular attention to anybody, unless they are acting in a way that transgresses the expected behaviors and actions. I think it really relates to the idea that we buy into our surveillance as well, in the sense that we choose to drive cars instead of taking public transportation so consequently we are accountable to that added monitoring force.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Hall
Great post. Red-light cameras are an effective and useful tool. Just like the ponopticon concept discussed in class, they are useful at preventing drivers from running red-lights. The funding coming from fines should be controlled by the government and should not benefit private contractors.
ReplyDeleteKyle Porter
I too kept thinking about the panopticon model and how we are still being controlled, regardless of the physical presence of law enforcement. We have no idea if the red-light surveillance cameras actually work or not, but as citizens, we would rather not risk getting a ticket so we instantly change our behavior. We see a camera on the top of the traffic lights and we act appropriately.
ReplyDeleteLaci Patiga
Great post, I personally think the red light cameras are a great example of surveillance that benefits the society that allows control and reinforcing moral behavior. Like the panopticon, the drivers will notice the cameras and act accordingly to avoid any fines. But on the other hand, replacing the personal work of the police with a mere machines and cameras may not accurately take into consideration of other human factors.
ReplyDeleteJi Jackie Park
This reminded me of a similar situation in which I received a fake parking ticket for parking sideways in a spot where I had seen many people park before. Everything on the ticket read like a real one except that when I went on the website that was listed there was no record of my having been issued a ticket. Even though I didn't end up having to pay anything, this attempt at social control certainly worked - I have not parked in that spot since! Thank you for the interesting post.
ReplyDelete-Molly Ruiz
This is great! The first type of successful surveillance methods I thought of when we were discussing this in class was the red light surveillance cameras. I too will not risk rushing through a yellow light due to the possibility of there being a camera on top of the light. This method of surveillance proves to be very effective. I found the possibility of future speeding cameras very interesting. Though I would not like this because I am often going slightly above the speed limit, I do believe it would act as a significant deterrent. A few months ago I received my first speeding ticket. I paid the $400+ for the fine and traffic school expenses and never wanted to speed again. This feeling lasted all of a month or so before I began pushing the speed limit again when I didn't see the presence of a cop. Though I don't go as fast as I use to, this method of deterrence was not all that effective in my case as I continue to go slightly above the speed limit. I believe that recording devices used for speed would act as a greater deterrence for myself as well as for others because we are unaware of when we are going to be monitored for our speed. As others have pointed out, this type of deterrence acts similarly to the Panopticon.
ReplyDelete-Tayler Davis
I really enjoyed reading this article. It brought up both the positive and negative outlooks on the red-light surveillance cameras. There was one statement in particular that caught my attention. It said that if one were to be caught by a red-light surveillance camera in California it would cost no less than a $500 ticket, plus traffic school, which is a pretty hefty consequence if you ask me. And considering there is no room for negotiation with these red-light surveillance cameras, individual liability is at an all time high. People begin to envision the sense of immediate consequence following being caught by a red-light surveillance camera. This ideology Americans have developed can single handedly cut the reckless driving instances in half.
ReplyDelete-Derek Campbell
Thanks for the great post Marielle. I don't appreciate how the companies who are making the cameras are exploiting the need for safety among drivers and pedestrians by profiting off the speeding tickets that are given to them. The companies are compromising the intention of the surveillance for money (another case of corporate greed?). Your post reminds me of another camera surveillance story that my dad encountered. My dad often shops at Costco, and before he turned left into Costco from a busy street, he noticed one day that cameras were installed to catch and ticket those who did not go into the proper lane to turn. It turns out that that camera was installed illegally and people applied to get their tickets revoked. Keeping this story in mind, camera surveillance should be used for properly and strategically in order for it to be effective, such as how red-light surveillance cameras are being used.
ReplyDelete-Edwina Yuan
Great idea Marielle. I was just driving down University and had to slam on my breaks to avoid running through the auburn light. The conflict that arouses in me, is that had that been any other light I would have went through without a doubt. But since the surveillance camera was there (Or i knew that the surveillance camera was there) I acted differently. The idea that the state no longer needs to manually supervise but can deter certain behaviors opens up an argument for a very slippery slope. This could lead to other traffic monitoring devices like speed cameras.
ReplyDeletehttp://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/19/speed-cameras-to-join-red-light-cameras-on-new-york-city-streets/.
But as we heard from our guest speaker yesterday, the first policeman to get cut are traffic and other speciality departments. The ability for the police department to monitor from afar does help offset the budget cuts to speciality units like the motor unit that Officer Upston discussed. But it does seem like it is at a cost. To be honest, I've probably dealt with only a handful of red light cameras during my stay in California but growing up in New York red light surveillance has had a totally different effect on my driving. The red light policy in New York has seen huge support and is continuing to influence everyday driving. This in conjunction with the closed circuit television cameras basically the entire city is under surveillance.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/atis.shtml
Joel Pititto
security 360 camera is a nationwide video surveillance company with a network of security camera installers in California. We are committed to you and recognize that customer service is the key to success. We have successfully implemented many security camera projects for government, commercial, and retail customers
ReplyDeletesecurity cameras installed in california.