According to Taro, at Monday's meeting of the Riigikogu's Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee, discussion focused on why the license plate detection camera system was initially developed, its legal basis, what the system has been used for and what safeguards have been in place to limit the potential violations of fundamental rights.

"As such, these explanations have been given for the time being. The two things that we are waiting for at the moment are both the in-house in-service monitoring, which is more for us, but also this independent monitoring by the Data Protection Inspectorate, which is perhaps more important for society – to get the assurance that people's data and privacy is protected, or maybe there is a need for some kind of rules to be supplemented, to be clarified," Taro told ERR show "Aktuaalne kaamera."

A possible amendment of the legal framework was also discussed during the meeting of the Riigikogu's Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee.

"Our opinion is that if the parliament thinks the regulation could be raised from the level of a regulation to the level of a law, where it is debated, among other things, in the large hall, then of course the ministry ought to submit the proposal to the government to amend the relevant law or laws," Taro said.

According to Taro, the issue will be looked at again next week during the joint meeting of the Riigikogu's Legal Affairs Committee and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Taro believes a debate on the issue is definitely necessary.

"Up to now, people have perhaps not thought about data protection in such depth. Everyone ought to have the peace of mind that their data is protected, and, if anything is used, it is in very serious cases and by a very limited circle of people."

If the Riigikogu decides to leave the regulation of license plate detection cameras at the level of a decree, whether the current regulation needs to be changed will depend on the assessment by the Data Protection Inspectorate. "It is true that technology is constantly evolving and so there is a constant need to update the legal framework," the minister said.

Chancellor of Justice: Constitution requires data collection to be described in law

The Interior minister also discussed the issue of the camera system on Monday in a separate meeting with Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madis. "What she has said so far has been of a universal nature, it has not yet touched on a specific system. Everything she has said in universal terms can only be agreed with," Taro said.

"This entire assessment needs to be analyzed more thoroughly. Only afterwards will it be possible to say whether there is an unjustified level of interference somewhere, or whether the protection against interference has not been sufficiently thought through or outlined," said Taro, stressing that this is the question the Data Protection Inspectorate ought to answer.

Madise told ERR that the Chancellor of Justice's Office believes there is currently no legal basis for recording all car registration numbers and that a public debate on these issues is also welcome.

"Today, we really discussed, among other things, the Chancellor of Justice's letter, which was sent a year ago, in which we asked for everything related to the use of these cameras to be properly regulated in accordance with the Constitution. This is what our office stands by. At the moment, there are quite big gaps when it comes to the use of the cameras, the filming of people and the use of filmed material," he said.

"The Constitution requires the law to state clearly for what purpose, and by whom, what data is collected, for how long, how it is stored, what it is used for, how a person can protect their rights and when it will be deleted," Madise said.

Madise cited the example of the border crossing database, whereby the law stipulates what exactly has to be there and what it is used for, as well as the Schengen database, where the Chancellor of Justice's office has found no basis in the law for recording all vehicle numbers.

"The general message – and I think we were also in agreement with the interior minister on this – was that these issues have to be discussed calmly and that the Constitution does not allow Estonia to become a surveillance society," Madise said.

"We evidently do not want to live in a society where everyone has to expect to be watched and potentially punished all the time, and the Constitution does not allow for that," the Chancellor of Justice added.

Madise also said that people's questions about the surveillance of both private and public cameras are legitimate, adding that these issues can only be resolved by law.

Kaljulaid: We want to take a closer look at the data the state has collected

Despite the explanations given by the Minister of the Interior, the members of the Riigikogu's special committee intend to delve deeper into the issue and want to take a closer look at the system themselves. To do so, they will have to go to the police station.

"In fact, we have agreed on some follow-up activities. We want to look more closely at the data that the state has collected. Or rather, to examine the way tit has been done and the way in which the collection of this data has been justified," said Raimond Kaljulaid (SDE), member of the Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee, in an interview with ETV show "Aktuaalne kaamera."

At present, the collection and use of data from CCTV cameras is regulated by a ministerial decree. However, Kaljulaid said it was likely to be turned into a law in the Riigikogu. In his view, this highlights the broader issue of the Riigikogu not having a a good overview of what is being done at the level of different agencies.

Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (Center), deputy chairwoman of the Riigikogu's Legal Affairs Committee added that in the case of the license plate camera system, even ministers were unaware of its existence. Now, however, it is being claimed that there is an analysis.

"This analysis, on the basis of which this system works, on the basis of which people's data is collected, where is the legal basis? So, I have a question: why is it marked 'AK ('for internal use' - ed)? For what reason is it not recommended to be made public? I have a suspicion that, since it is in fact known that there is no legal basis, that this is also the reason why this document is currently classified today," Kovalenko-Kõlvart said.

Kovalenko-Kõlvart stressed that as long as people's fundamental rights are not being protected, the system should be stopped from operating. The issue will also be discussed next week in a joint meeting of the Riigikogu's Constitutional Affairs and Legal Affairs committees.

---

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