Macau Opinion | Taxis and privacy

Debates on the protection of citizens’ right to privacy are often fraught with difficulty. The protection of other equally deserving rights is often called into the debate. The balance and relative importance of the various values in potential conflict will vary in different situations and contexts. Different people may express different preferences. Social and political compromises are often needed.

All this suggests that discussing matters of privacy protection is both important and sensitive. Debates and arguments should be carefully balanced, rigorous and comprehensive. This seldom seems to be the case. The current discussion about the possible installation of cameras in taxis provides a good example of a certain lightness of stance on these matters.

The suggestion is that cameras and recording devices should be installed in all vehicles to deal with so-called incidents. Incidents appear to be essentially complaints about the behaviour of taxi drivers and, occasionally, customers. Most complaints go ‘unpunished’ as ‘proof’ is missing. Fair enough: but does that justify the intrusion represented by the recording of all taxi trips, their users and interactions with the drivers? It is doubtful. One would expect the presentation of a solid case to justify otherwise. The recent discussion in the Legislative Assembly was less than encouraging in this respect.

Just for starters, words and comparisons should be carefully weighed. That was hardly the case. Comparing the installation of cameras and recording devices, as described above, to the so-called ‘black boxes’ (itself a misnomer) in aircraft is both incorrect (they have very different purposes) and misleading (it hints at normalcy where none can be claimed).

Flight recorders register relevant (and recent) flight data plus the communications involving the pilots. Their aim is to provide clues about accidents or serious security incidents only if and when they occur. Nothing similar exists anywhere in the world, or seems necessary, for ‘taxi services’. And the incidents one has in mind – rudeness, overcharging, etc. – are of quite a different nature.

Surely, a reference to privacy concerns was uttered during the discussion. But substantial discussion was absent. Who manages and ‘owns’ the images and sounds recorded? Who has access to them and under what conditions? What procedures and guarantees would be set for their (presumably regular) destruction? In the event of abuse, what sanctions would apply and who would oversee the process? These are some of the many questions that needed discussion.

Otherwise, concerns about privacy may be claimed but will lack substance.