What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, unless you get in a cab

from review journal

CAMERAS IN TAXIS: Surveillance equipment likely in cabs

Legislators fail to revise rule; concerns persist

By OMAR SOFRADZIJA
REVIEW-JOURNAL

A rule requiring surveillance cameras in Southern Nevada taxicabs appears poised to take effect this year as legislators have backed off efforts to rework the mandate.

A Friday deadline for legislators to draw up a bill revising the rule came and went without action amid taxi industry support for the cameras despite disagreement on the details.

"The question becomes: What's the best way to make this happen?" Sen. Dennis Nolan, R-Las Vegas, the Senate's assistant majority leader and chairman of its transportation committee, said this week. "If we do not introduce legislation, cameras go into cabs."

Legislators suspended the rule, which was to take effect April 1, when a legislative regulations committee expressed concerns over allowances for audio recordings.

Audio is not required, but it's not banned, either. Civil libertarians and many cabdrivers fear that audio surveillance will be misused.

If the Legislature fails to modify the rule by the end of its session June 6, the rule would take effect as early as that date.

"This may have some potential problems, but it isn't potentially as bad as a bad piece of legislation," Nolan said. "I think it's safer by my perspective to go with what's known than what's unknown.

"Once you gin up a bill that has something to do with this, it comes under all the influences somebody brings to bear on this particular issue," Nolan said.

Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, the Assembly's assistant majority leader and transportation chairman, said he agreed that the rule should take effect.

Many industry officials were happy that the camera rule was alive, but their joy was tempered by concerns.

"They're getting cameras in the cabs, but you'd like to see something strictly used for the drivers' benefit. They've got enough management tools already," said Ruth Jones, president of the Industrial Technical Professional Employees union, the valley's largest labor representative of cabbies.

"It's still an invasion of privacy for the tourists coming into town and the locals using the cabs," she said.

Yvette Moore, administrator of the Taxicab Authority, which authored the rule, said she hoped that concerns would die down after surveillance proved itself as a subtle deterrent to violence against cabdrivers.

"Cabdrivers deserve the occupational protections that exist technologically today," she said. "Success will be the healer."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes audio recording, was upset that the Legislature first shared its concern, then dropped the issue.

"It's not unreasonable to conclude this is more about raw politics than good policy and lawmaking. The Legislature ought to be embarrassed at its failure to address this obvious problem," said Gary Peck, executive director of the group's Nevada chapter.

"Here, they have a problem they themselves identified. The fix would have been relatively simple" by banning audio recording outright, Peck said.

Brent Bell, president of Whittlesea Bell Transportation, which has already voluntarily installed event-triggered video and audio recorders in all 381 of its cabs, was glad that a resolution seemed near.

"No one wants to be the person holding this up any longer than it's been," he said.

Nolan said he favored audio surveillance as an additional tool to prosecute people who assault cabdrivers.

Peck dismisses that as "not a credible claim."

"It certainly puts the lie to the slogan 'Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,' " Peck said. "I guess the line would be, 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, unless you get in a cab.' "

Nolan disagreed. "To the driver that's afraid of being watched by Big Brother, don't do anything they don't expect you to do," he said.

Bell said his customers were accepting the surveillance equipment. "You just have a few people out there who don't like it because they don't like it," he said.

Nolan said it was possible that before the end of the session, lawmakers would consider an amendment specifying who may access surveillance information, and under what circumstances.

Peck said his group would lobby legislators for an amendment banning audio recordings as well. "If they do nothing, it's just a matter of time before somebody files a lawsuit," he said.

Oceguera said he doubted any amendment would gut the camera rule. "I think an amendment probably won't affect the bottom line of getting cameras in cabs," he said.

I consider that an invasion on privacy .


**

They have cameras on a lot of subway trains, they have cameras on ATMs, they have cameras all over the place. I mean, I'm all for privacy, but I think we've already rolled down the slope on that.

Preventing robberies, or identifying criminals is legitimate.

But it eventually becomes a problem when they use the cameras for other uses.

Imagine if there was a camera watching you at work all day long.
And if you do anything other than work, you get fired...

That's the kind of camera use that has people worried.

The more cameras there are, the more likely you are to hear someday that someone got fired, or arrested, or fined, because they smoked-out behind their work, and it was caught on some surveilance camera across the street...

Remember kids Big Brother is watching...

watching this message board...

right now...

watching...

yesssssssssssss....

I know what you're wearing. All of you.

Sorry...I'll give you back the skirt I borrowed from ya..LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kidthorazine

Remember kids Big Brother is watching...

---

The sooner people stop thinking this is a fresh and funny thing to say, the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellis

The sooner people stop thinking this is a fresh and funny thing to say, the better.

---

yeah yeah yeah i know its old but in the context of this thread i just to say it