Earlier this week, Paavo was driving in Tartu in the evening when his trip ended on Ülikooli tänav after an unmarked police car pulled him over.

The reason for the stop was that Paavo had crossed an intersection on a red light. Police also showed him detailed video footage of the violation filmed by a camera located on the roof of the 14-story Emajõe Ärikeskus (Pläsku) building. Paavo said the experience left him feeling uneasy.

"The police officer told me they were carrying out aerial monitoring. I understand that I violated traffic rules, but the fact that someone can monitor me in real time all the time creates a strange feeling. The real question is who can do this, when, on what basis and why. That future could look quite bleak for ordinary citizens," Paavo said.

According to Sander Kullamaa, head of the traffic unit at the South Prefecture, the cameras on the roof of Pläsku monitor the city space, though police do not watch the live feed continuously. Earlier this week, police carried out a targeted enforcement operation and used the Pläsku camera feed as part of it. More broadly, police plan to introduce drones in addition to cameras for traffic monitoring.

"The places where drones could be used for traffic supervision are intersections where officers cannot otherwise document violations or where it is more difficult to do so. There are different things we could monitor or record with drones. Traffic lights are certainly one issue, but another example we have considered is monitoring dangerous behavior on highways," Kullamaa said.

Police hope drones could begin to be used for traffic enforcement as early as this year. However, implementing the idea would require reviewing legislation and organizing training. It is also unclear whether drones would be used only within Tartu or more widely and how many drones would ultimately be needed.

"They would work in exactly the same way we currently document violations — someone would be located near the intersection to record the offense and the vehicle would then be stopped where there is space to do so. There will certainly be no chasing vehicles with drones. We would not say they would be used every day, but during larger enforcement operations we would involve them. It is simply another tool for documenting violations," Kullamaa said.

Legal scholar Carri Ginter, however, believes using drones for traffic enforcement is an exceptionally bad idea.

"Estonia's constitution is based on freedoms and as a nation we have not agreed that we want to move from a freedom-based society toward a surveillance society. Police or the Ministry of the Interior cannot make such a decision on their own. It is especially ridiculous when we are dealing with minor offenses and misdemeanors — we significantly increase anxiety in society while solving relatively small problems, such as whether an intersection is blocked, a yellow light or some other minor issue," Ginter said.

Another issue concerns how the collected data would be stored and used, Ginter added.

"The legal argument regarding privacy is essentially the same: if a country has recording cameras that capture everyone, that is the same kind of privacy intrusion as license-plate recognition cameras. I don't understand how people find the courage to propose this again when there has just been a serious societal and parliamentary debate where it has been said that we do not want such technology or allow it to be used for simple objectives. Yet now we hear that there is a camera on the roof of Pläsku and drones will also be flying around — all supposedly in the name of your own safety," Ginter said.

MP: Debate must precede use of drones in traffic surveillance

Madis Timpson (Reform), chair of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee, said the possible use of drone cameras in traffic enforcement should first be discussed publicly before being introduced.

"Although the goal seems noble — calming traffic — I think we should first initiate a societal debate about whether and how we as a society want our privacy to be intruded upon. Otherwise we could end up with a situation like the license-plate recognition camera case where it turned out a system had been created that even ministers knew nothing about and which operated for years. I don't think that is appropriate in a state governed by the rule of law," Timpson told ERR on Friday.

Timpson said a broader public discussion should definitely be launched on the topic, noting that the chancellor of justice has also pointed out that issues related to cameras and drones should be addressed from the perspective of privacy.

Asked by ERR whether the issue of drone cameras could be incorporated into a bill currently before parliament requiring warning signs to be installed ahead of mobile traffic cameras, Timpson said the issues should remain separate.

"I think the topic could certainly be discussed within the framework of that bill. But we should probably keep the focus there narrowly on mobile cameras — we likely won't resolve the issue of drones in that context," he said.

"I'm not saying it's necessarily the worst idea, but it should be preceded by a societal debate. I don't want to live in a society of bans and orders where someone else decides what is best for me as an individual. In that sense, I agree with Carri Ginter. In a free society, things shouldn't work that way," Timpson said, reiterating his position.

The article was updated to add comments by Madis Timpson.

--

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