I received an infringement notice for using my cell phone while driving. I did not believe this was the case so I went to www.service.nsw.gov.au/finesonline to view the pictures for offense number 1662399540 and viewed the image. In the image I actually had my wallet in my hand and after reviewing the date and time I remember doing this.
The quality of the image was very poor quality Black & white (B&W) and low resolution and this surprised me when considered the equipment used was of very high quality and the contractors used were a professional imaging company.
I downloaded the image, (as can you) and used a free PC photo cleaning app to improve the clarity of the image and when viewing the cleaned up image, Blind Freddie could clearly see that the object I was holding was my wallet. The folded leather and even the cards poked into their slots were clearly identifiable so why was the infringement notice issued?
The Act states that AI is used to preliminarily identify possible infringements and these incidents are then passed to a human for review prior to the infringement being issued.
If this process actually happen, my notice would not have been sent out as it can clearly be seen I am holding a wallet, not a phone.
After having a professional Photo person look at the image and my wallet and phone he concluded that the wallet was so much wider than my phone it is not possible to get the two objects confused. He also pointed out that the reviewer would be reviewing a picture at it's raw, very high definition and in colour, not black & white as was the case with the image NSW Revenue provided me. He was able to use professional software to further enhance the low quality image which made it even clearer that the object I was holding was in fact my wallet, not my phone. He went on to give the view that the low quality B&W image I was provided was probably to make it difficult to contest the notice because NSW Revenue possess and could provide the original high quality colour image.
I spoke with a person associated with NSW Revenue who informed me the human review process does not actually happen as it would cost quite a bit of money due to the number of people wanting to contest similar infringement notices. He further explained that he believed a cost analysis was carried out and it was assessed that more than 78% of people would not proceed past the initial review if it was rejected so it was more cost effective not to employ people to do the review so AI is the preferred method.
He further stated that several people have requested the review information under Freedom of Information (GIPA) and privacy requests and even though it is your legal right to have this information supplied NSW Revenue cannot supply it because it never happened so they reject all such requests and force the people into the Tribunal. They rely on the data that shows less than 2% of people will proceed to this point so is is still the most cost effective option to risk the tribunal. He believed the NSW Revenue legal advice was to settle before any judgement was passed by the tribunal as this would still mean that 98% of wrongly issued Phone Camera notices would still get paid.
What are our legal rights?
How can we find out if our reviews were actually carried out by a real person as required by the Act?
How can we legally enforce our rights to information have NSW Revenue provide the original image in the high quality resolution provided to NSW Revenue by the Phone Camera operators?
If NSW Revenue are not following the Act with regards to the review requirements, what are our rights?
It would seem NSW Revenue are knowingly being deceptive with this process, what can we do to ensure they follow the correct process?
The quality of the image was very poor quality Black & white (B&W) and low resolution and this surprised me when considered the equipment used was of very high quality and the contractors used were a professional imaging company.
I downloaded the image, (as can you) and used a free PC photo cleaning app to improve the clarity of the image and when viewing the cleaned up image, Blind Freddie could clearly see that the object I was holding was my wallet. The folded leather and even the cards poked into their slots were clearly identifiable so why was the infringement notice issued?
The Act states that AI is used to preliminarily identify possible infringements and these incidents are then passed to a human for review prior to the infringement being issued.
If this process actually happen, my notice would not have been sent out as it can clearly be seen I am holding a wallet, not a phone.
After having a professional Photo person look at the image and my wallet and phone he concluded that the wallet was so much wider than my phone it is not possible to get the two objects confused. He also pointed out that the reviewer would be reviewing a picture at it's raw, very high definition and in colour, not black & white as was the case with the image NSW Revenue provided me. He was able to use professional software to further enhance the low quality image which made it even clearer that the object I was holding was in fact my wallet, not my phone. He went on to give the view that the low quality B&W image I was provided was probably to make it difficult to contest the notice because NSW Revenue possess and could provide the original high quality colour image.
I spoke with a person associated with NSW Revenue who informed me the human review process does not actually happen as it would cost quite a bit of money due to the number of people wanting to contest similar infringement notices. He further explained that he believed a cost analysis was carried out and it was assessed that more than 78% of people would not proceed past the initial review if it was rejected so it was more cost effective not to employ people to do the review so AI is the preferred method.
He further stated that several people have requested the review information under Freedom of Information (GIPA) and privacy requests and even though it is your legal right to have this information supplied NSW Revenue cannot supply it because it never happened so they reject all such requests and force the people into the Tribunal. They rely on the data that shows less than 2% of people will proceed to this point so is is still the most cost effective option to risk the tribunal. He believed the NSW Revenue legal advice was to settle before any judgement was passed by the tribunal as this would still mean that 98% of wrongly issued Phone Camera notices would still get paid.
What are our legal rights?
How can we find out if our reviews were actually carried out by a real person as required by the Act?
How can we legally enforce our rights to information have NSW Revenue provide the original image in the high quality resolution provided to NSW Revenue by the Phone Camera operators?
If NSW Revenue are not following the Act with regards to the review requirements, what are our rights?
It would seem NSW Revenue are knowingly being deceptive with this process, what can we do to ensure they follow the correct process?
