Marc Daalder
Marc Daalder is a senior political reporter based in Wellington who covers Covid-19, climate change, energy, primary industries, technology and the far right. Twitter: @marcdaalder.
Technology
Waka Kotahi Traffic Agency does not disclose privacy impact of cameras detecting motorists using mobile phones, Marc Daalder reports
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner and an independent expert both say Waka Kotahi made a mistake by not publishing a privacy review before it started a trial of traffic cameras that can identify distracted drivers.
On May 23, the transportation company announced it would start a six-month trial the following day of speed camera technology that detects cell phone use and people driving without seat belts. The images are said to have been anonymized and would provide Waka Kotahi with new data on the magnitude of the distracted driving problem.
The transport agency completed a Privacy Impact Assessment and was in contact with the Privacy Commissioner for months before the trial began. But that document is still not available and will not be released until later this month, Waka Kotahi said in response to a request from the Official Information Act.
A spokesperson said this was in line with best practice. “The assessment is an internal document that Waka Kotahi has proactively released for the sake of transparency. Best practice is for the assessment to be completed before the trial begins, go through a robust assessment process and be made public as soon as possible. follow.”
But a spokesperson for the Privacy Commissioner’s office disagreed.
“Being transparent about what happens to people’s information is an important part of any organization’s responsibility to uphold people’s privacy rights, which is why our office expects organizations to publish a Privacy Impact Assessment before adopting or changing new technology extending an existing system, to show that there has been a lot of thought put into how it can affect people’s privacy rights.”
Andrew Chen is a research fellow at Koi Tū, the Center for Informed Futures, and an expert on technology and society. He also said best practice would support the release of privacy vets prior to the start of a new project or trial so that affected people can be fully informed.
“As a matter of public sector best practice, privacy impact assessments should be released before the trials begin.”
Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the cameras’ seat belt detection function was only discovered by Waka Kotahi shortly before the start of the trial. After consulting with the Privacy Commissioner’s Office, transportation officials decided to wait until they completed a new privacy assessment before enabling seat belt detection.
The Waka Kotahi spokesperson said the assessment was recently completed and the seat belt detection will be activated within a month.
The documents also show that the transportation agency had two goals in the trial: to collect data about the magnitude of the problem and to test the camera technology for possible future enforcement uses.
“We are seeking a significantly large sample to understand the magnitude of the problem and evaluate the equipment’s capacity to manage large numbers of vehicles,” officials wrote in response to comments from the Office of Privacy. Commissioner.
Waka Kotahi mentioned the possibility of using the cameras to issue fines in the press release and subsequent comments to the media, but the focus was on the data collection component.
In an email before the trial began, an official from the privacy commissioner’s office urged the agency to “note to the public that while the process will only gather information about the extent of the problem, the use of this kind of enforcement technology could be considered at a separate future stage”.
The agency spokesperson said.
“We have made it clear to the public that use of this technology for enforcement will be considered in the future.”
Commenting on Newsroom, the spokesperson for the Privacy Commissioner’s office said Waka Kotahi would need to consider bigger considerations if it wanted to use the cameras to issue tickets and fines.
That includes whether there are alternative tools that can achieve the same goal, gain more assurance about the accuracy of the detection technology, and follow the office’s guidelines for facial recognition when that technology is used to identify drivers.
Waka Kotahi’s spokesman said it would not use facial recognition as part of a future enforcement program and that legislative changes would be needed if it wanted to use the cameras to detect and punish violations.
Chen said this technology is widely used abroad and may not be controversial if used here.
“If this technology works in the New Zealand context and it comes out positive from a cost-benefit analysis and there is a real potential that using this technology can reduce accidents and actually save lives, then I would expect them to case will use this technology for enforcement,” he said.
“We have speed cameras, we have T3 lane enforcement, we have red light cameras. These tools have all been introduced, maybe there was a bit of controversy at first – probably not because of the technology, more just because people don’t like getting fined, but after over time they become very normalized.”