Las Vegas Sun

December 7, 2009

Currently: 47° | Complete forecast | Log in

Columnist Jeff German: Legislators doing an about-face on cameras

Friday, April 15, 2005 | 5:51 a.m.

Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.

WEEKEND EDITION

April 16 - 17, 2005

It's almost unbelievable to have to tell you this.

But thanks to some heavy-duty lobbying by the wealthy taxi companies, we're heading back to where we started months ago in the push to get cameras in cabs that protect both the drivers and the privacy of their passengers.

There's been an about-face at the Legislature among lawmakers who once voiced concerns about letting companies install video cameras that also record sound.

Sen. Warren Hardy -- the chairman of an interim legislative committee that rejected a Taxicab Authority camera regulation allowing audio recordings in January -- now says he wants the flawed measure to move forward.

So does his fellow Las Vegas Republican, Sen. Dennis Nolan, who chairs the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, which oversees the taxicab industry.

I'm talking about the sloppy regulation the Taxicab Authority Board approved in October that allows the use of sound without any safeguards in place over how that information will be disseminated, shared and stored -- or even erased, for that matter.

It's a potential nightmare for the tourism industry, which is luring millions of visitors to Las Vegas each year with the marketing slogan, "what happens here, stays here."

Hardy says he has been tugged and pulled by industry lobbyists on the camera issue and has been unable to persuade Nolan, who carries an influential voice in the debate, to introduce legislation banning sound.

"My concern is that this is getting caught up in politics and, in the meantime, somebody else is going to die," Hardy says. "My inclination is to step out of the way and let the regulation go to protect the drivers."

Translated that means the companies got to the lawmakers.

If it sounds odd to you that a politician would claim politics is getting in the way of doing the right thing, you're not alone.

"It's preposterous," says Gary Peck, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which has pointed out all kinds of problems with the camera regulation.

"The interim committee members expressed serious concerns about audio taping and now, after they've been lobbied, they seem to be saying, 'Yeah there are serious concerns, but so what.' That seems to be irresponsible."

So here's where we are today.

For the regulation from hell to meet its final demise, the Legislature, by law, has to pass a resolution affirming the interim committee's action against the measure.

But if the Legislature doesn't do that by the time it recesses June 6, the opposite happens -- the regulation, with all of its faults, takes effect.

Hardy and Nolan, the change of heart twins, seem determined to steer us on the latter regressive course.

It's true that Hardy's interim committee threw the taxicab industry into disarray when it lodged its objections to the regulation in January.

But this wasn't the committee's fault. It was the fault of the industry's regulators, who had kowtowed to the taxi companies and failed to assert their authority.

With no regulation mandating a minimum of digital still cameras in place, the companies were free to do what they wanted.

Some installed cameras with sound and lobbied hard in Carson City to protect their investment. These companies were more interested in using cameras as a management tool -- to keep their eyes and ears on the drivers -- than improving safety on the streets. Other companies put in the less-intrusive still cameras, and still others did nothing at all.

Lawmakers were supposed to correct the mistakes of regulators. They were supposed to get something in place that protected the drivers from acts of crime, as well as the riding public from having its privacy invaded.

That was the original intent of the camera regulation.

But now it looks as though the lawmakers have sold out to the wealthy companies, too.

archive

  • Most Read
  • Discussed
  • Most E-mailed

Calendar »

  • 7 Mon
  • 8 Tue
  • 9 Wed
  • 10 Thu
  • 11 Fri