Editorial: Perplexing taxi rule

Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004 | 8:57 a.m.

This week, after years of dithering, state officials finally adopted regulations requiring the use of security cameras in taxis. In February the state Taxicab Authority, despite law enforcement authorities' support of putting cameras in taxis, delayed their implementation after taxi companies complained. The Taxicab Authority, which correctly is viewed as being more of a mouthpiece for the cab companies than a real regulator, agreed with the industry to commission a study to determine whether cameras would be effective. Of course, there was no need for a study. Security cameras have unobtrusively been in place for many years at convenience stores, restaurants, malls and hotel-casinos. The taxi companies used the study as a stalling tactic, hoping that the public would lose interest and that state regulators would decide against requiring the use of cameras , which many of the companies didn't want to buy. But the public saw through the companies' deception, and momentum for req! uiring cameras picked up following the tragic death in August of taxi driver Pairoj Chitprasart. Police say a man intent on robbery doused Chitprasart with a flammable liquid and set him on fire.

What worries us about the adopted regulation, however, is that it will permit the companies to install cameras that also record sound. We wouldn't be surprised if the companies were to use this to eavesdrop on their drivers' conversations. Also, the privacy rights of passengers could be violated if audio recordings are allowed, especially since state law requires consent before a conversation can be recorded. Why the Taxicab Authority would permit conversations to be recorded, and invite opposition to the regulation, is beyond us. It's almost as if the Taxicab Authority wants a regulation that will upset taxi customers, inviting a public backlash and potentially causing the regulation to be repealed. It just doesn't make any sense.