FLOCK automatic number plate recognition
page 9 / 11
==== South Africa ====
In Johannesburg, South Africa, ANPR is used for the etoll fee collection. Owners of cars driving into or out of the inner city must pay a charge. The number of tolls passed depends on the distance travelled on the particular freeway. Some of the freeways with ANPR are the N12, N3, N1 etc.
==== Sweden ====
In Stockholm, Sweden, ANPR is used for the Stockholm congestion tax, owners of cars driving into or out of the inner city must pay a charge, depending on the time of the day. From 2013, also for the Gothenburg congestion tax, which also includes vehicles passing the city on the main highways.
=== Private use ===
Several UK companies and agencies use ANPR systems. These include Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Transport for London.
=== Other uses ===
ANPR systems may also be used for/by:
Section control, to measure average vehicle speed over longer distances
Border crossings
Automobile repossessions
Petrol stations to log when a motorist drives away without paying for their fuel
A marketing tool to log patterns of use
Targeted advertising, a-la "Minority Report"-style billboards
Traffic management systems, which determine traffic flow using the time it takes vehicles to pass two ANPR sites
Analyses of travel behaviour (route choice, origin-destination etc.) for transport planning purposes
Drive-through customer recognition, to automatically recognize customers based on their license plate and offer them the items they ordered the last time they used the service
To assist visitor management systems in recognizing guest vehicles
Police and auxiliary police
Car parking companies
To raise or lower automatic bollards
Hotels
Enforcing Move over laws for emergency vehicles
Automated emissions testing
== Challenges ==
=== Circumvention ===
Vehicle owners have used a variety of techniques in an attempt to evade ANPR systems and road-rule enforcement cameras in general. One method increases the reflective properties of the lettering and makes it more likely that the system will be unable to locate the plate or produce a high enough level of contrast to be able to read it. This is typically done by using a plate cover or a spray, though claims regarding the effectiveness of the latter are disputed. In most jurisdictions, the covers are illegal and covered under existing laws, while in most countries there is no law to disallow the use of the sprays. Other users have attempted to smear their license plate with dirt or utilize covers to mask the plate.
Novelty frames around Texas license plates were made illegal in Texas on 1 September 2003 by Texas Senate Bill 439 because they caused problems with ANPR devices. That law made it a Class C misdemeanor (punishable by a fine of up to US$200), or Class B (punishable by a fine of up to US$2,000 and 180 days in jail) if it can be proven that the owner did it to deliberately obscure their plates. The law was later clarified in 2007 to allow novelty frames.
If an ANPR system cannot read the plate, it can flag the image for attention, with the human operators looking to see if they are able to identify the alphanumerics.
In 2013 researchers at Sunflex Zone Ltd created a privacy license plate frame that uses near infrared light to make the license plate unreadable to license plate recognition systems.
=== Privacy concerns and misuse ===
The introduction of ANPR systems has led to fears of misidentification and the furthering of 1984-style surveillance. In the United States, some such as Gregg Easterbrook oppose what they call "machines that issue speeding tickets and red-light tickets" as the beginning of a slippery slope towards an automated justice system:
"A machine classifies a person as an offender, and you can't confront your accuser because there is no accuser... can it be wise to establish a principle that when a machine says you did something illegal, you are presumed guilty?"
Similar criticisms have been raised in other countries. Easterbrook also argues that this technology is employed to maximize revenue for the state, rather than to promote safety.
The electronic surveillance system produces tickets which in the US are often in excess of $100, and are virtually impossible for a citizen to contest in court without the help of an attorney. The revenues generated by these machines are shared generously with the private corporation that builds and operates them, creating a strong incentive to tweak the system to generate as many tickets as possible.
Older systems had been notably unreliable; in the UK this has been known to lead to charges being made incorrectly with the vehicle owner having to pay £10 in order to be issued with proof (or not) of the offense. Improvements in technology have drastically decreased error rates, but false accusations are still frequent enough to be a problem.
Perhaps the best known incident involving the abuse of an ANPR database in North America is the case of Edmonton Sun reporter Kerry Diotte in 2004. Diotte wrote an article critical of Edmonton police use of traffic cameras for revenue enhancement, and in retaliation was added to an ANPR database of "high-risk drivers" in an attempt to monitor his habits and create an opportunity to arrest him. The police chief and several officers were fired as a result, and The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada expressed public concern over the "growing police use of technology to spy on motorists."