Some try to reason with the police officer who has pulled them over for some real or imagined traffic offense. But when law enforcement is represented by a computer-driven camera that hasimmortalized your violation in film, it is hard to talk your way out of 1a heavy fine. Yet that is precisely what some 300 motorists in SanDiego succeeded in doing last week that a superior court judge rules 2that pictures taken by the so-called red-light cameras were unreliable and therefore unacceptable. The first U. S. court decision to reject all the traffic violationscatching on camera, the ruling by judge Ronald Styn has fueled 3debate over the growing use of the devices. Police departmentsswear, and studies indicate, that the robot cameras deter people in 4speeding and running red lights. Yet at least seven states haveblocked proposals to implement them, but opponents—ranging from 5House majority leader Dick Armey to the American Civil LibertiesUnion—argues that the cameras violate privacy and place profit 6above public safety. Part of the problem is that virtually all the devices in the place 7are operated by private firms that handle everything from installingthe machinery to identifying violations—often with maximal police 8oversight—and have an incentive to pull in as many drivers as theycan. The companies get paid as many as $ 70 a ticket, and the total 9revenue is hardly chump change. " It's all about money," says Congressman Bob Barr, a leading critic. Not so, insists Terrance Gainer, Washington's executive assistant chief of police. "We havereduced fatalities. If some company is making money that, that is 10American way. "