LETTER: The Case Against “Policing By Mail”

Dear Editor:

Massachusetts House Bill 4087 and related proposals to expand automated traffic enforcement represent a troubling shift toward digital surveillance that prioritizes revenue over real-world safety. While proponents claim these cameras curb speeding, “policing by mail” creates significant issues regarding due process and the effective use of law enforcement resources.

A primary objection to H.4087 is that it targets the vehicle’s owner, not necessarily the driver, effectively eroding the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, a camera is a passive tool; it cannot stop an impaired driver or a stolen vehicle in real-time. Perhaps most concerning is the expansion of the “Big Brother” state. Creating a massive network of cameras effectively ensures the government is always watching us, tracking our movements under the guise of safety while diminishing our right to privacy in public spaces.

Instead of investing in a web of automated cameras, resources should be directed toward increasing the visible presence of police officers. Physical patrols serve as a proactive deterrent to a wider range of community concerns that cameras simply ignore—most notably littering and illegal dumping. These issues require human observation and immediate enforcement to correct, rather than a delayed fine from an algorithm.

By focusing on automated fines, the state risks prioritizing a high-tech “gotcha” system over genuine public order. Massachusetts should instead empower officers to maintain a presence on our streets, ensuring that enforcement remains focused on the immediate safety and the rights of the entire community.

George Ferdinand

Tewksbury