Disturbingly, the photo attached to her citation revealed more than just Cinzia checking a text.
3
3
Once she realised the surveillance photo showed a full up skirt shot, she reached out to traffic authorities, dismayed.
But the New South Wales traffic citations service did nothing to rectify the situation.
Cinzia said: “I got a written letter back that basically ignored everything that I’d said, except to say someone in the office does look at the photos.”
The motorist was floored at the lack of response for the inappropriate photo.
She continued: “You could see up my skirt, between my legs. You could see my underwear.
“You could see the phone, and right next to the phone there was my underwear.”
After public outcry, the transport services in NSW said they will review protocol for their handling of “sensitive images”, Minister for Roads Natalie Ward said.
Lucky for Cinzia, she didn’t have to pay the fine due to her impeccable driving record.
But she said something needs to change, since she has no control over the revealing photo of her, and who may see it.
She said: “It feels a bit like David versus Goliath because you have no control over who sees those photos.”
Cinzia isn’t alone in her fight to stop invasive photos taken from traffic cameras.
Another Aussie was shocked when he received a £500 fine after his wife reached for a sun visor.
Richard Arnold was fuming after receiving the photo of the incident: which had an upshot of his wife Anh Nyugen’s underwear.
Anh is only five feet tall, and had placed her leg on the vehicle’s dashboard when the inappropriate photo was taken by traffic cameras.
“It’s actually illegal I think to photograph up a skirt. Covert photographic surveillance should not be used in such an insensitive and disrespectful manner.”
Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads said photographs taken by traffic cameras are encrypted and used only for “enforcement purposes”.
They also said the images aren’t altered in any way before being sent out with the infringement notice.
3