Creeping Road Traffic Surveillance in Latvia: Social and Legal Implications of Digital Policing Tools

Abstract

This article critically analyses road traffic surveillance and its social and legal implications, with a focus on the use of digital tools in policing, namely: speed cameras, drones, and a police mobile application in Latvia. Specifically, the article explores: (1) the attributed role of these surveillance tools in terms of caring, preventive, and punitive functions and the potential for function creep and (2) the key challenges these tools pose to fundamental rights and data protection. Thus, it contributes to academic and public debate around the consequences of digital surveillance and embedding democratic governance in policing. The research is based on an exploratory case study that includes analysis of expert interviews, media coverage, the legal framework, and a focus group with traffic participants. We argue that, while the use of these surveillance tools is construed as an example of benevolent and caring surveillance aimed at improving road safety in a preventive manner, it is reliant upon a pronounced punitive dimension that in itself may not be conducive to behavioural change. At the same time, the increasing deployment of all of these tools may lead to function creep and raises challenges for fundamental rights and data protection. While efforts have been made to ensure legitimate use of these tools, not enough attention has been paid to their compliance with data protection requirements. Moreover, there is a need to improve the regulatory framework regarding police use of new surveillance tools, such as drones, which would determine the purposes of such uses and set an obligation to evaluate their effectiveness, impact, and proportionality in order to comply with fundamental rights law and ensure their trustworthy use.