I think the question is more about what is better? Some would say that the "big-brother" monitoring and tracking of TNCs deters more bad-actors (on both driver and passenger side) than a one-time fingerprint check. Does anyone have any data showing that background checks have prevented people from driving? Or is there a correlation between people with "records" driving with TNCs and committing assaults?
Are people debating universal finger-printing as a measure to "make things more safe" or just a "Taxi's have to do it, so everyone else should bear the same economic barrier to entry" argument? If GPS tracking and profiles are more safe, then the taxi industry should adopt that and drop the fingerprinting.
An interesting thing about the political process is that the drivers and companies have to deal with the TNCs' technological and social media advantage. I have seen it many times: TNC's can easily accelerate the political process because they have their customers' email addresses. They can get petitions signed much more easily. Cab Companies and Taxi drivers do not have this option. This fact alone has distorted what city councils across America see, TNCs can get their customers to click a few buttons to complain with an email blast or social media post, while taxi companies have a much harder time getting petitions signed. I'm not saying this is "unfair" but more that it's a structural reality in the current TNC vs. Taxi industry conflict.