Editorial: Cameras, yes; audio, no

Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 | 9:14 a.m.

The killing of a cab driver last August during a robbery attempt brought increased attention to the constant danger faced by drivers, who renewed their long-standing call for a state law requiring cameras in their vehicles. The Nevada Taxicab Authority reacted by drafting regulations that would govern the cameras' use.

When owners of cab companies announced plans for cameras with full audio capability, it brought objections from legislators (who must approve the regulations), the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the drivers. The concern was privacy. A legislative committee rejected the regulations for that reason.

The sensible follow-up by the Taxicab Authority would have been a revision of the regulations, clarifying that sound recording would not be allowed. A revision would have taken some time, but nevertheless the requirement for cameras could have been on track.

Instead, the Authority pitched the issue to the full Legislature. If the Legislature takes no action in the first 30 days of the session that begins next week, the flawed regulations will go into effect. This would undoubtedly lead to lawsuits that could end any prospect of cameras in the cabs. We believe the Legislature should reject the regulations, so that there would be a chance of getting them amended.

Either way, however, installation of the cameras, so vital to protecting drivers, will be a long way off. Many of the cab company owners objected to the cameras because of their expense. By deliberately adding audio, when the only purpose of the cameras was to protect drivers through video images, it looks to us as if the owners are trying to appear cooperative while in fact destroying the whole initiative.