EDITORIAL:

“People don’t like bigger government,” Councilman Joe Carchio said at last Thursday’s City Council meeting.

He was referring to the idea of installing cameras at certain traffic intersections in the city, in an effort to catch — and possibly even curb — red light violators. But just when it seemed the public discussion was edging toward a defense of civil liberties, he added, “But if this can save lives, we should really have an open mind.”

Do we really want to go down that road?

While we support the city’s effort to crack down on drivers who gun through intersections at the peril of other motorists and pedestrians, there have been problems with cameras in other communities.

A San Diego Superior Court judge ruled red light cameras in that city were unconstitutional because they violated a state vehicle code that says only government agencies in cooperation with a law enforcement agency can operate an automated system.

But if the agency contracting with the city to manage the cameras is making a profit based on the number of citations issued, that’s a problem. That’s what happened in San Diego.

And then there’s the issue of privacy.

The still and video images the cameras capture can and would ultimately be used to implicate people in crimes of other sorts. Fine, you think; crime is crime and it should be stopped.

But what if the crime is your marital indiscretion, and photographic evidence of it is mailed to your home attached to a traffic ticket?

To argue against marital infidelity is to miss the point. Put another way: People generally don’t like bigger, more intrusive government.

Police Capt. Chuck Thomas says cameras are a proven way to reduce accidents at the city’s busiest intersections, including Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue, and Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.

But can he prove they will not be used to embarrass drivers who have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Such slippery issues need a sturdy solution.