You still have some privacy leftover? We'll take that!

When you live in a major metropolitan area you become accustomed to relying on others for your transportation. Those who frequent subways and city buses have long had their actions recorded with video cameras. One mode of transport that has been slow to adopt cameras in the United States is the taxicab. Other countries have mandated video cameras in some or all of their taxis. New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain are examples.

Now one city has a new mandate: Audio to accompany the video. Not only will all of your actions be filmed while you are riding in a taxi in Oxford, England, but if this ordinance remains, your conversations will also be recorded. The reason for the plan is to help in the investigation of crimes “as well as deal with any disputes over fares.” Does this really justify having all of the passenger’s conversations recorded including the ones that are likely made on a phone to an absent party? The response has been that it is an important intrusion and that we really don’t have much privacy while in public transit anyway. A spokeswoman for the Oxford City Council retorted that the expectation of privacy in a taxi was "far lower" than in a home or personal vehicle.

In my last post I talked about how we have sold our privacy in many respects for the modern conveniences we take for granted every day. This situation is very different because it is not an exchange, it is merely a theft. While some privacy is certainly surrendered on many forms of mass transportation (an introductory Torts course will even teach that a right to be free from physical interaction is probably also surrendered), being the sole passenger in a taxi that you are paying to have drive you from one specific place to another of your choosing does not seem like the type of place where this should happen.

“This is a staggering invasion of privacy being done with no evidence, no consultation and a total disregard for civil liberties,” said Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

But we really don’t have anything to worry about with these recordings, we are assured, because the police are the only ones who will be able to have access to them and only then because some crime or dispute has been reported. This does not appease my fears when I also read that in the past three years, “904 police employees have been subjected to international disciplinary procedures for breaching the Data Protection Act” in England and Wales. How many more have evaded detection? How much money could be made by a police officer engaging in some corporate espionage by listening to the “private” conversations of businessmen?

George Orwell’s novel 1984 was published over 60 years ago and many of its invasions must have seemed like pure fantasy at the time. Although it is cliche to refer to this book every time there is a fear of government intrusion into our lives, the fact that the “telescreens” always watched and listened is easily brought to mind when hearing this proposal. Although we may have sold much of our privacy, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn't resist a government attempt to steal it. I only hope that when this “great idea” comes across the pond and is proposed here it will be resisted.