Dash cams are becoming more popular in Canada. A small camera mounted to the dash of a car, they exist because people are concerned about insurance fraud and want to have a bit of ammunition if they are in an accident and believe they are not to blame. It's already extremely popular in Russia, where videos of crazy drivers have become the country's most common export. The technology is catching on elsewhere because bad drivers are hardly a Russian exclusive, and people are concerned about their insurance.
I find the trend interesting because, elsewhere, I have read about privacy advocates wanting rules around license plate scanners, which function in a much more mundane manner - parking enforcement and finding cars connected to crimes, especially stolen cars - but people are concerned about how long the data is kept and how it can be used. Much like the dash cam, the scanner can be useful in an investigation because it gives data on a driver, albeit less specific data, but the scanners draw suspicion while the dash cams are willingly purchased by drivers across the county.
What's the difference then? It comes down to who is using them, in the long run. With a cam, the user is the driver, they have control over the camera, the data, and so on. With the scanner, the user is either police or parking agencies, who have the same control. The difference comes down to people trusting themselves, but not trusting law enforcement or anyone else. They might be installing a surveillance system in their car, but it's their surveillance system, and one which is controlled by them alone.
If I was worried about privacy, I would be much more concerned with the dash cam for the same reason. A license plate is something anyone can see when walking down the street, it's not something that can be hidden, and without access to a database of what the plate means and who it belongs to, it's meaningless information. In Saskatchewan, at least, information on cars that are not suspicious is discarded anyway, though this is not the same in other jurisdictions police are still limited by various rules. With a dash cam, it's more specific information, and it's owned by someone I don't know but also does not actually have much legal oversight. It's a mobile surveillance device which people outside of that car have no control over, but it's also something that there is not actually a close legal eye on how the information is handled.
Neither option is a choice. Your plate is going to be scanned, you're going to be on tape if another driver has one of the cameras. While it might seem like the cameras are an option, it still affects the privacy of everyone else. But does one method of surveillance bother you more?
Which is not to say that I am inherently suspicious of such cameras or think they should not be allowed. Most people who use them have innocent goals and are just trying to reduce their insurance premiums. It is just a contrast between people in this country, as some want to have as little data on their movements as possible stored and collected, while others will tape their every move just in case something bad happens. The second group is controlling the game, and make it difficult to be too private.
