In a move to prevent Uber and Lyft drivers from duping customers with false names and    faking clean driving records, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association is pressing legislators to require drivers to undergo fingerprinting. Using fingerprint background checks can better identify criminal records of drivers, but the app-based car companies claim their private background-checking services are just as reliable, despite suits in California that list a known murderer and 25 others with criminal records among Uber drivers.

Fingerprint requirements slow down and reduce the volume of drivers in the sign-up process, which is why Uber and Lyft have objected to the mandates in cities like Austin, but others also question whether fingerprinting is necessary; many wonder why Boston police have never required cab drivers to do scans if fingerprints were so essential in protecting passengers. Others have noted that often law enforcement fingerprint databases contain faulty information and would exclude certain minorities from becoming drivers.

The consensus among riders seems to be that the pros of app-based car companies outweigh the cons, and they would rather accept looser driver regulations than have no access to the companies. Uber and Lyft stand by the safety of their background-checking model and customers help keep the peace by rating drivers on their apps, which begs the question, is fingerprinting really a necessity?