In recent days, the debate on technological solutions enhancing police work and issues of privacy has once again gained momentum. ERR reported that the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) is planning to introduce a so-called self-measuring police vehicle, along with a nationwide network of surveillance cameras equipped with facial and license plate recognition.

The news also highlighted concerns regarding data protection, with specific issues pointed out by sworn attorney Carri Ginter, who has previously been an active commentator on related topics.

However, the problems extend beyond data protection. Most importantly, the proposed systems are fundamentally at odds with the values upon which we have built our society for nearly 35 years.

Plan undermines trust in the state

Since Estonia regained independence, the country has been built in a way that seeing a police officer or a blue-and-white patrol car instills not fear but a sense of security. Thanks to this commendable effort, public trust in the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) is exceptionally high — according to 2024 survey data, as much as 88 percent. Given this enormous contribution to public safety, the latest plan from the PPA and the Ministry of the Interior is perplexing. Why crumple up and throw out the societal progress achieved so far?

What other outcomes could arise from the PPA representative's vision of the future, where a smart police vehicle essentially functions as a fine-dispensing robot? According to the plan, when in operation, the vehicle would automatically detect traffic violations, measure speed, generate fines and transmit them to the PPA's information system. It would also be able to identify distractions while driving, unfastened seat belts, red-light violations and more.

Curiously, in light of this description, a passage from the PPA's strategy takes on an eerily unsettling tone: "The police's task is to create security, but we want to take it a step further because the Estonian people deserve and expect more from us." I believe that the kind of "more" described in the news report is neither what Estonians deserve nor what they expect.

A fully automated, continuous and emotionless surveillance system will inevitably provoke a societal backlash — something neither the PPA nor anyone else likely wants to see. If people begin to perceive a police car not as an ally but as a punishment machine, the old reflexes of the Soviet-era militia — a startled reaction at the sight of law enforcement, a fear of inadvertently doing something wrong — will creep back in. It has taken decades to move past these instincts, which belong to a repressive past, not a free society.

No violation, no problem — or is it as simple as that?

Claims that various smart fine systems do not infringe on fundamental rights — because they only register violations — are flawed. These arguments boil down to the same reasoning often seen in online comment sections: "If you don't want to get fined, don't break the rules" or "If you behave properly, you have nothing to fear."

This way of thinking may appear rational on the surface, but in reality, it is a dangerously slippery slope. If we justify constant surveillance by saying that only offenses are recorded and only violators are punished, we may unwittingly begin applying the same logic to every aspect of life.

Following this path inevitably leads to the question: If you have nothing to hide, why shouldn't the police be allowed to search your home or car at will? In other words, this mindset mirrors the well-known "slowly boiling frog" analogy from childhood — a pattern that a liberal democratic society should be firmly standing against.

Not everything technology makes possible is necessary

State representatives seem to be enamored with the possibilities offered by modern surveillance systems — all that quality, all those capabilities, all that smart software that helps with identification.

The possibilities are indeed nearly limitless. In principle, the PPA could even remotely track every citizen's smartphone accelerometer and GPS data in an individualized manner, automatically issuing a fine if a person is detected moving at more than 120 km/h on land.

What reason could there be for someone to travel faster than that? After all, no road has a higher speed limit. Fine, let's exclude the Audru racetrack, airports and add some altitude-related exceptions for air travel. Is such an approach technologically possible? Absolutely. But is it necessary or reasonable? Certainly not. This example is, of course, exaggerated, and no one is actually planning such measures, but it serves as a clear illustration that we are moving in the wrong direction.

No one disputes that technology helps prevent and solve crimes and is an invaluable tool in border control — this is all immensely valuable. However, there must be a reasonable boundary that protects ordinary citizens from feeling like perpetual suspects.

Of course, a flesh-and-blood police officer cannot be on every street corner at all times — but do we, as a society, even expect that? Should we be using technology to create a situation that simulates such a reality? I don't believe we ever agreed to that.

By ignoring these questions, we risk incrementally building the very kind of society we seek to protect ourselves from.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!