Spy ware in the truck??

That's ecxactly what I'm referring to. My bus had a drive cam, so I know how they work. The company can only review a 20 second clip that the camera sent to them as a result of said event. The company doesn't spy on you like some people are making these cameras out to be.

And if you honestly think the company is going to hire people to do nothing but watch a truck through a camera all day then not all your dogs are barking.

 

While I don't like the idea of haveing a recording of me driveing I do have a problem with this so called "right to privacy" Can you show me where you found that? I don't remember every seeing it

 

Here is what I got in an e-mail from a relative of mine who is a constitutional attorney & has argued and won several supreme court cases.

4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to privacy, due to the words I highlighted in bold. This creates what's known as "case precedence" and now, the 4th amendment is legally interpreted to include the right to privacy.

Over time, terminology changes. Example: in the time the constitution was written, the word "regulate" did not mean "government CONTROL" like it does today. It meant "neat and orderly" when referring to something like a store shelf. If the shelf was messy, needed stocking or whatever, they'd tell someone to "regulate" the shelf. When referring to a militia, "well regulated" meant the members were well trained and organized. Also, "militia" did not mean "military" like today's gun-grabbers would like to think. A militia was formed of ordinary civilians who provided their own weapons, clothing, etc and were free to leave the ranks whenever they wanted. The militia in the movie "The Patriot" was an accurate representation of the type of militia referred to in the 2nd amendment.

In the 4th amendment, the word "effects" meant a person's job or business. It is interpreted today as the words were interpreted at the time they were carefully chosen by the founding fathers. That's why warrants are needed for searches and seizures of businesses too, not just your house.

Because the 4th amendment includes "effects" referring to your job or business, and because it has more recently been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to include a right to privacy, you have the right to privacy while at work, regardless of what your job is.

This "right to privacy" however is trampled all the time. In some cases people won't object, such as ####pit voice recorders in commerical aircraft, and cameras over the cash registers at convenience stores.

Adding them to the cabs of trucks is unconstitutional through interpretation by the US Supreme Court, though it's a case where they'll simply do it anyway if they want to like so many other infringements committed by federal, state and local governments.

If your company puts a camera in the truck, they're allowed to do that if they own the truck. However you have two legal options to sue. You can sue your employer if the camera is hidden and you're not informed of it's presence, and you can also sue if you are disciplined or fired for refusing to operate the vehicle with the camera installed and operable. (They can install it in the truck but you have the right to tell them to disable it, basically to cut it's power, turn it off, etc. If they turn the camera on without your knowledge and permission, you can sue them.)

I hope this clears up some confusion.

 

it`s right above me..

 

your last 13 words are what i`m trying to get at. what makes you think a scumbag company wont do something like that? is it really that far fetched?

 

I find it funny that you think people can't change. Safety is about choices and behaviors. Once people learn that there are consequences for their actions they are forced to change or accept the consequences. Currently the rumble strip addresses the immediate behavior and has zero consequences. If you want to try to make changes more will have to be done. Being able to show a driver what it looks like when you drift out of your lane, the consequences of the action become more real. I feel this would be an excellent tool for teaching, and probably a real eye opener for some drivers.

 

I agree, it will probably be abused. Most things are abused. I have to say that most scumbag companies would rather just keep the wheels turning to keep the money rolling in than use technology to spy on their employees.

 

Thank you! Now can you see part of the reason it is opposed?

 

So you think that the concept of freedom and of having rights is some sort of defect? Really?? I am amazed at the number of self-loathing Authoritarians we have here.

The US Constitution does NOT give you rights and never has. It limits government, and it's ability to impinge upon your life. The question might better be phrased: Where is it written that every moment of your (work) life must be lived in front of a camera?

 

No doubt, but to think that an employer is going to use this to fire people is kind of a stretch. They're firing people with ease now without this technology, why would they put the effort into learning a new way of firing someone when the current way is so much easier?