Clearly the motive is to induce all
drivers to use E-ZPass. It costs the state five to ten times more to
process a cash transaction, either by paying a toll worker, or by
photographing the license plate and sending the car owner a bill.
But in the Orwellian world of the Turnpike Authority, the E-ZPass fee
is called a “discount,” and Turnpike propaganda emphasizes the
claim that E-ZPass reduces travel time. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which never met a
layoff of public employees it didn't like, jumped on the bandwagon,
saying this change “makes sense for drivers and for Pennsylvania.”
Although you can
save on tolls by using E-ZPass, it'll cost you. There is a $3 per
year fee, and you are required to keep a minimum balance in your
account. The balance starts at $35. Every time it drops below $10,
you must replenish it by another $35. You can either send them cash
or a check, or have it automatically deducted from your bank account
or credit card. Then there is the transponder—the device on your
car which identifies it as it passes through the toll booth. You
must rent it for $10 if you insist on replenishing your account by
cash or check, but there is no fee if you have your account
replenished automatically. (Pretty clever, eh?) These are not huge
amounts of money, but when you multiply them by the number of users,
it's a pretty good-sized float.
How much must
drivers pay for the privilege of saving the state a lot of money?
This is similar to the introduction of ATMs, when the banks laid off
tellers and then announced they would charge a fee for the
“convenience” of using an ATM. The banks backed off, at least
when you use your own bank's ATMs, but the Turnpike Authority has no
competitors. Where does the money go? E-ZPass has been outsourced.
The Turnpike Authority pays $91 million a year to TransCore, a
subsidiary of Roper International, to run E-ZPass. If the system
generates a surplus—which it obviously should—I hope the money
goes to the state rather than the contractor.
One concern about
E-ZPass that the Post-Gazette didn't mention is its potential
for invasion of privacy. E-ZPass creates a permanent record of the
travels of hundreds of thousands of citizens. These records, which
are in private hands, can be used against motorists in a number of
ways. The concern is not just theoretical. In 2007, NBC revealed that divorce lawyers are using E-ZPass records to prove infidelity.
The article reports that Pennsylvania and New Jersey are two of the
four (out of 12) E-ZPass states that claim they only release records
in criminal cases. However, the article recounts a case in which a
Pennsylvania lawyer used E-ZPass records to help her client prove
that her husband, who claimed to be at a business meeting in
Pennsylvania, was actually in New Jersey with his mistress that
night. Did the reporter not notice this inconsistency?
Later this year,
Pittsburgh will start using surveillance cameras to ticket drivers
for running red lights. Since the state police obviously know the
distances between toll booths, how long will it be before they start
issuing speeding tickets based on transponder readings?
In this modern
world of massive NSA surveillance, E-ZPass may seem a minor threat.
In September, it was reported that the Pittsburgh Parking Authority was using surveillance cameras mounted on police cruisers to
photograph the license plates of 200,000 motorists each month,
creating a massive data base of Pittsburghers' locations. The stated
purpose was to locate and boot scofflaws who hadn't paid parking
tickets, but the data were retained for up to 30 days and were
available to anyone who requested it (including the reporter who
broke the story). Their reported success rate was .01%–that is,
one of every 10,000 cars they photographed was booted. A month
later, the Parking Authority revised its policy. They now claim they
delete the data every day.
The ACLU surveyed almost 600 police departments and state agencies about their license
plate tracking policies. About half responded. The federal
government, not surprisingly, refused to cooperate and the ACLU is
suing them under the Freedom of Information Act. Of the departments
that responded, about three-quarters use license plate tracking and
85% planned to increase their use. Few departments place any
substantial restrictions on how they may be used, and many allowed
non law-enforcement uses such as collecting parking fines and
repossession of vehicles. When used for law-enforcement purposes, hit rates are
typically below .5%. Retention policies vary widely; data are
retained anywhere from one day to indefinitely.
Most departments
purchase license plate reading technology with grants from the
federal government. Data can easily be pooled in centralized data
bases, and some regional data bases are already known to exist.
License plate readers are also extensively used by private companies,
repo men being the most frequent users.
The technology is
so cheap and widely available that it virtually invites abuse,
including data mining to identify potential criminals among people not previously suspected of
crimes and discriminatory targeting, such as identifying people who
visit mosques. Widespread knowledge of surveillance could have a
chilling effect on people's willingness to exercise their rights of
free speech, assembly, religion, etc. Most
jurisdictions have no policies protecting citizens from abuse of
these technologies.
And this doesn't
even begin to address the tracking capabilities of cell phones, GPS
devices and various other electronic gadgets people carry in their
cars. Finally, this morning's New York Times has an article about legal problems associated with event data recorders inside new cars that might be used, for example, by insurance companies to deny claims because the policy holder appeared to be driving carelessly.
You may also be interested in reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.