Friday, Oct. 1, 2004 | 6:31 a.m.
Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at [email protected] or (702) 259-4067.
WEEKEND EDITION
October 2 - 3, 2004
Lost in the shuffle of the Great Camera Debate is a push by taxi companies to install video cameras with sound in cabs.
The feeling among some companies is that, if they're going to be forced to use cameras to protect their drivers, they might as well get equipment that will give them the ability to keep tabs on the drivers, too.
Sound is not required in a proposed camera regulation being considered by the state Taxicab Authority board, but it also isn't prohibited.
The board also has done nothing to discourage some of the bigger companies, such as Whittlesea Blue and Yellow Checker Star, from testing cameras that have sound capability.
There's just one problem.
NRS 200.650 prohibits the use of cameras with sound without getting the permission of those being monitored, in this case the taxicab passengers. The law is on the books to protect everyone's privacy.
So if any of the companies end up settling on cameras with sound, they're likely to run into all kinds of legal trouble.
Subjecting tourists every day to an HBO version of "Taxicab Confessions" would be the ultimate intrusion upon their privacy, from the moment they step into a cab at the airport.
We might as well bug their hotel rooms and favorite restaurant booths on the Strip, too.
And we can scrap the tourism industry's multimillion-dollar marketing campaign that plays off the slogan, "what happens here, stays here."
"It certainly would have a chilling effect on tourism if the private conversations of tourists, whether business or personal, are being surreptitiously recorded by the cab companies," says Bill Bible, president of the Nevada Resort Association, the casino industry's political arm.
This is, frankly, the NRA's worst fear in this muddied-up camera debate.
That the five-member Taxicab Authority Board has not reined in the cab companies here is another example of how poorly the board has handled the discussion over the last seven months.
From Day One, the greedy owners, who have been reluctant to pay for the cameras, have had to be dragged into the debate kicking and screaming.
And now that they finally have accepted the fact that they will have to install cameras to protect the drivers (the board appears set to approve the regulation next month), the owners want to exploit the effort for their own selfish management desires. They see an opening to watch over the drivers in "Big Brother" fashion.
How did things get so out of hand?
"There are a myriad of problems with sound recordings that far out-weigh any real law enforcement value," says Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. "I would think the cab companies themselves would worry about their liabilities."
A number of questions, Lichtenstein says, would be raised. Who would have access to that information? How would it be safeguarded? How would it be used? And who would it be shared with?
Under the proposed Taxicab Authority regulation, any cab with a camera would have to post a warning that the camera is in operation, similar to what you see in banks. By acknowledging that warning when stepping into a cab, passengers would be giving their "implied consent" to be photographed.
But Lichtenstein says he doubts whether such a warning would comply with the state law that bars the use of cameras with sound.
It's an open invitation to a lawsuit.
And it's a reminder of how far out of focus the Great Camera Debate has gotten.
archive
