Members of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee believe that various amendments are needed in the law to allow the police to continue using license plate recognition cameras, which were temporarily suspended. They also argue that such measures should have been clearly regulated by lawmakers from the beginning.

Madis Timpson (Reform), chair of the Legal Affairs Committee and former minister of justice, told ERR that decisions on important matters must be made by the legislature. "And I think this is quite an important issue that should be regulated by law in the Riigikogu," he said.

"If the draft amendment to the Law Enforcement Act is currently in the works somewhere, then this matter could be addressed there. One paragraph may not be enough — we might need an entire chapter to properly outline how data collection with cameras is carried out, how long the data is retained and to ensure transparency. The content should come from the Ministry of the Interior and its form be shaped by the Ministry of Justice," Timpson said.

Committee Deputy Chair Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (Center) told ERR that the first step should be for the Ministry of the Interior and the Police and Border Guard Board to define the purpose — that is, why these cameras are necessary.

"For me, it's surprising that the Ministry of the Interior hasn't even started drafting legislation regarding the cameras. As has been said, that process is only now getting underway. I think the Riigikogu — and for example, the Legal Affairs Committee — could already begin the process of amending and discussing the law. I'm also prepared to draft a bill myself if the coalition is ready for constructive cooperation," said Kovalenko-Kõlvart.

She outlined five aspects that she believes need to be changed in the law. First, it should clearly state the basis, method and location of data collection on individuals. Second, it should specify what types of personal data is being collected — what exactly is gathered about a person and what constitutes the dataset collected by the different cameras.

"Third, the law should define how long the data is retained — this so-called deletion aspect — whether it's one month or three. Fourth, there should be provisions allowing every individual whose data is collected to access that data — meaning they can submit a request and receive the information the state has collected about them," said Kovalenko-Kõlvart.

Fifth, she cited an issue also raised by legal scholar Carri Ginter: currently, the police collect and use the data, while also monitoring its legal use themselves. "But there must be independent oversight to ensure everything is done properly," she said.

Timpson agreed that it would be more appropriate for an independent agency to handle oversight. "That would definitely be a cleaner solution, and I can't argue with that," he said.

According to Andre Hanimägi (Social Democratic Party), another member of the Legal Affairs Committee, the Data Protection Inspectorate would be the natural choice for such a role. He agreed with Kovalenko-Kõlvart that everyone should have the right and ability to see what data the state has collected about them and to ask why.

"And if no investigation is underway, then even with license plate recognition, people should be able to see that the police took an interest in their plate for one reason or another. Of course, this has to be justified. But a person should be able to ask, 'Excuse me, why was the police investigating my license plate?'" said Hanimägi.

If legislative amendments are proposed, the Riigikogu is the place where everything should be publicly debated — and that's how it should have been from the start, Kovalenko-Kõlvart said.

"This is exactly where society can gain clarity, a sense of security and the understanding that no one is being monitored arbitrarily and that data is not being collected just in case. The core problem is that this entire process has unfolded in the opposite way," she said.

Timpson disagreed that everything has been done in reverse, noting that the police have based their actions on paragraph 34 of the Law Enforcement Act. "But I do agree that things could certainly be improved to ensure greater legal clarity," he said.

Kovalenko-Kõlvart argued that the cameras should not be used until the amendments are enacted into law.

"Without a legal basis, these cameras must not and cannot be used. This clearly infringes on people's fundamental rights, and until those rights are properly regulated and protected by law, the cameras must remain suspended, as they are now," she said.

Hanimägi: Courts have accepted data so far

However, Andre Hanimägi noted that Minister of the Interior Igor Taro (Eesti 200) took a significant risk by pausing the use of license plate recognition cameras. While legal clarity is needed, the system is also a vital tool for the police, he said.

"Thanks to license plate recognition, very serious crimes have been solved. And what's also important is that the evidence has been reviewed by the courts, which have previously accepted this kind of activity. So it's a double-edged issue — whether the suspension was necessary or not," he said.

Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) Director General Egert Belitšev said on Wednesday that license plate recognition is a highly important tool for the police. Suspending its use directly hampers the police's ability to catch criminals and, as a result, undermines public safety in Estonia.

Hanimägi said he believes the license plate recognition system remains necessary in the future.

"I definitely don't believe that someone is sitting there watching millions of images in real time to see whether Andre went to the store, a gas station or somewhere else. We always say we want crimes to be solved quickly — especially serious crimes or even car thefts. So I think the system must continue to operate, despite the pause, and we just need to create a law that makes everything unambiguous so that no one questions its legality," he said.

Timpson also said that, in his view, the cameras in use in Estonia are here to stay.

"If you've been to London, the whole city center is full of cameras. I don't think we'll be taking cameras down here. The issue is that people's privacy must be protected and legal clarity ensured, so there's no risk of abuse. The data that's collected must be properly gathered, stored and deleted — so it doesn't end up sitting on some server forever," Timpson said.

Kovalenko-Kõlvart agreed with the PPA's stance but said those views and objectives should have been articulated earlier and sent to lawmakers in the Riigikogu. "The legislature should have created the necessary legal foundation based on that. That's not how processes work in a democratic rule of law. You don't implement something first — install the cameras — and only then start drafting the legal basis. It should've been the other way around," she said.

Timpson acknowledged he is not a staunch opponent of surveillance cameras and noted that those used by the police represent just a portion of all the cameras in public spaces.

"There are all kinds of cameras operated by various institutions — forest cameras and so on. I know the chancellor of justice has also received complaints about aerial photos taken by the Land Board. Farmers have been upset that aerial images reveal the machinery they have in their yards, which could interest thieves. So this data issue is actually quite complex. I think the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice do have the capability to write this properly into law," Timpson said.

--

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