Victory for cabbies over spycams in taxis (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Victory for cab drivers over spycams in Southampton taxis
11:22am Friday 22nd February 2013 in News
By Sian Davies, Senior News Reporter
Victory for cabbies over spycams in taxis
CONTROVERSIAL ‘taxicams’ that were ordered to be fitted in all Southampton cabs could now be ripped out after they were ruled illegal.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was spent on installing the cameras despite opposition from drivers, who themselves took the city council to court in a bid to have the cameras removed.
A tribunal has now ruled that the authority was wrong to insist that all cabs in the city should be fitted with the socalled ‘spy cams’ because they breached human rights by continuously recording conversations.
The council was appealing an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner who said that while the visual recording was lawful, the audio recording contravened data protection and privacy laws.
During the tribunal the council argued that the footage was vital in the fight against crime.
It cited examples of how the recordings had been used by Hampshire police to help with inquiries 193 times, including offences of sexual assault, racially aggravated abuse and theft.
Sound recordings taken from a cab were even used as evidence against Arben Lleshi, who was convicted earlier this week of the murder of Agim Hoxha.
However, the tribunal ruled that the right to privacy outweighed the crime reduction benefits.
Passengers and drivers, it said, should not reasonably expect to have their conversations continuously monitored as, once fitted, the cameras could not be turned off, even if the vehicle was being used privately by the driver.
The cameras were introduced in 2009 as part of a licensing condition and cost up to £700 each, of which cabbies have to pay about £300. The rest was paid for by the Government.
About half of the 1,000 hackney carriages and private hire cars in Southampton have the cameras installed, costing the taxpayer about £200,000.
The ruling has been welcomed by drivers.
Southampton Trade Association chairman Clive Johnson said: “They were forced on us without, in my opinion, the proper consultation.”
The mandatory equipping of all taxis with cameras has now been suspended.
The city council’s licensing panel will now meet to discuss whether the cameras have to be removed or can be adjusted to disable the sound.
Deputy leader Councillor Jacqui Rayment said: “The tribunal and the Information Commission accept that an unspecified triggered or ‘panic button’ system for audio recordings would be acceptable, although it has not been made clear how this would work in practical terms.”
The city council was not able to comment on how much the court case had cost it.
Comments(20)
Block41row0sfc
says...
11:57am Fri 22 Feb 13
jonnyx
says...
12:01pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Come on Sian Davies *Senior News Reporter* do you really think/ want us to believe the cams will be *ripped out* why not use the word removed instead. Sloppy use of language for a so-called senior reporter.
cowley
says...
12:13pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Money well spent then!
Morons!!
Jerry Parsons
says...
12:15pm Fri 22 Feb 13
jonnyx wrote:Rats, you beat me to it.
"CONTROVERSIAL ‘taxicams’ that were ordered to be fitted in all Southampton cabs could now be ripped out..."
Come on Sian Davies *Senior News Reporter* do you really think/ want us to believe the cams will be *ripped out* why not use the word removed instead. Sloppy use of language for a so-called senior reporter.
St.DaveH
says...
12:16pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Forest Resident
says...
12:17pm Fri 22 Feb 13
jonnyx wrote:She must have got a promotion then, she described herself as a mere 'press officer' in an article of hers earlier in the week. I guess self indulgent winging about being put in her place at a by-election is what it takes to get ahead in a local fish and chip paper producer! ;)
"CONTROVERSIAL ‘taxicams’ that were ordered to be fitted in all Southampton cabs could now be ripped out..."
Come on Sian Davies *Senior News Reporter* do you really think/ want us to believe the cams will be *ripped out* why not use the word removed instead. Sloppy use of language for a so-called senior reporter.
rickey
says...
12:33pm Fri 22 Feb 13
ToastyTea - let's install it in your house just in case and we can all watch you. It has nothing to do with the old chestnut if you have nothing to hide its to all to do with our rights to basic privacy.
mickey01
says...
12:58pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Tenderhearts wife
says...
12:58pm Fri 22 Feb 13
loosehead
says...
1:17pm Fri 22 Feb 13
rickey wrote:Are Taxi drivers allowed to live in their cabs?
Block41row0sfc - read the story they can have CCTV but with no sound.
ToastyTea - let's install it in your house just in case and we can all watch you. It has nothing to do with the old chestnut if you have nothing to hide its to all to do with our rights to basic privacy.
So I guess it's okay now for supermarket/shop workers to ask for instore CCTV to be turned off as it's encroaching on their Human Rights?
how many companies use CCTV's in the work place?
Unless your up to no good what was the problem with Taxi's having them?
Just after this was in the paper first time around a Taxi driver was attacked so there is the need for them for Taxi drivers safety as well as ours the customers safety.
So we should all refuse to use a taxi unless it's fitted with a CCTV which is working.
if enough of us request a taxi with CCTV when booking one I wonder how many will be removed?
Lone Ranger.
says...
1:24pm Fri 22 Feb 13
SotonLad
says...
2:42pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Raxx
says...
3:34pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Block41row0sfc
says...
3:51pm Fri 22 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:thank you could not have writ it any better.
rickey wrote:Are Taxi drivers allowed to live in their cabs?
Block41row0sfc - read the story they can have CCTV but with no sound.
ToastyTea - let's install it in your house just in case and we can all watch you. It has nothing to do with the old chestnut if you have nothing to hide its to all to do with our rights to basic privacy.
So I guess it's okay now for supermarket/shop workers to ask for instore CCTV to be turned off as it's encroaching on their Human Rights?
how many companies use CCTV's in the work place?
Unless your up to no good what was the problem with Taxi's having them?
Just after this was in the paper first time around a Taxi driver was attacked so there is the need for them for Taxi drivers safety as well as ours the customers safety.
So we should all refuse to use a taxi unless it's fitted with a CCTV which is working.
if enough of us request a taxi with CCTV when booking one I wonder how many will be removed?
Now wondering if Ricky is a taxi driver himself.
Tenderhearts wife
says...
5:18pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Raxx wrote:This would be the solution because as lone ranger says some of the taxis are owned by the driver and used during time off for personal use. people are miss reading the article, it is just the recording of conversations that are the issue, if you are in a shop your conversations are not being recorded it is just visual.
I find it hard to believe that it's impossible to install a camera that's linked to the meter. When the meter is on (even when not running) the cabbie's at work, and the camera can be operational. When the car's being used privately, the meter's off, and no recording happens. This can't be beyond the ken of man FFS.
bigfella777
says...
6:08pm Fri 22 Feb 13
They were fitted after the number of complaints against city cab drivers soared after the council licensed drivers who were not fit for the job as they were challenged that it was discrimination to insist that potential taxi drivers should be able to speak fluent English.
Another example of PC Britain gone mad and the chaos that it causes.
cantthinkofone
says...
6:41pm Fri 22 Feb 13
bigfella777 wrote:And the Oscar best non-sequitur in the comments of a provincial newspaper goes to......
They were never fitted to deter or for solving crime.
They were fitted after the number of complaints against city cab drivers soared after the council licensed drivers who were not fit for the job as they were challenged that it was discrimination to insist that potential taxi drivers should be able to speak fluent English.
Another example of PC Britain gone mad and the chaos that it causes.
elvisimo
says...
9:39pm Fri 22 Feb 13
Tenderhearts wife wrote:Lip reader. Wouldn't help if Keith Harris or Rodger de courcey were the passengers would it.
im glad as it is an infringement of peoples rights,if a crime happens, if need be they can get a lip reader to see what has been said. just because they have made this ruling it doesnt mean crime in taxis will increase. if your that way inclined you will do it anyway.
cantthinkofone
says...
1:00pm Sat 23 Feb 13
elvisimo wrote:Or anyone wearing a baseball cap. It's also far less likely to stand up in court.
Tenderhearts wife wrote:Lip reader. Wouldn't help if Keith Harris or Rodger de courcey were the passengers would it.
im glad as it is an infringement of peoples rights,if a crime happens, if need be they can get a lip reader to see what has been said. just because they have made this ruling it doesnt mean crime in taxis will increase. if your that way inclined you will do it anyway.
ToastyTea says...
11:54am Fri 22 Feb 13