DriveCam....

My apologies regarding the specific manufacturer.

Regarding the analogy, we'll agree to disagree. Here's why.

This position is often raised in debates by pro-big brother hawks. Doing so is (usually) intentionally dishonest and the approach is based on multiple false assumptions.

There are some basic tenets right off the bat why this is a bad mindset.

1) Rules always change.
Once the invasive surveillance is in place to enforce rules that you agree with, the rule mindset that is being enforced could change in ways that you don't agree with at all. But by then, it is too late to protest the surveillance. For example, you may agree to cameras in every home to prevent domestic violence ("and domestic violence only") - but the next day, a new political force in power could decide that certain sexual acts will again be illegal, and they will use the existing home cameras to enforce their new rules. Any surveillance must be regarded in terms of how it can be abused by a worse power than today's. Apply this to trucking and you can see very easily why this is a poor idea.

2) It's not you determining if you have something to fear.
You may consider yourself law-abidingly white as snow, and it won't matter a bit. What does matter is whether you set off the red flags in the mostly-automated surveillance, where bureaucrats look at your life in microscopic detail through a long paper tube to search for patterns. When you stop your car at the main prostitution street for two hours every Friday night, the Social Services Authority will draw certain conclusions from that data point, and won't care about the fact that you help your elderly grandmother (who lives there) with her weekly groceries. When you frequently stop at a certain bar on your way driving home from work, the Department of Driving Licenses will draw certain conclusions as to your eligibility for future driving licenses - regardless of the fact that you think they serve the world's best reindeer meatballs in that bar, and never had had a single beer there. People will stop thinking in terms of what is legal, and start acting in self-censorship to avoid being red-flagged, out of pure self-preservation. (It doesn't matter that somebody in the right might possibly and eventually be cleared - after having been investigated for six months, you will have lost both custody of your children, your job, and possibly your home.)

In addition to the above, the mindset assumes said surveillance has correct data which it has been proven time and again to frequently not have.

3) Rules -must- be broken from time to time for society to progress.
A society which can enforce all of its laws will stop dead in its tracks. The mindset of "rounding up criminals is good for society" is a very dangerous one, for in hindsight, it may turn out that the criminals were the ones in the moral right. Less than a human lifetime ago, if you were born a homosexual, you were criminal from birth. If today's surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, the lobby groups for sexual equality could never have formed; it would have been just a matter of rounding up the organized criminals ("and who could possibly object to fighting organized crime?"). If today's surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, homosexuality would still be illegal and homosexual people would be criminals by birth. Going back further, Blacks would not be permitted to use the same restaurants, drinking fountains and restrooms as whites. It is an absolute necessity to be able to break unjust laws for society to progress and question its own values, in order to learn from mistakes and move on as a society.

4) Privacy is a basic human need. This can NOT be stressed enough.
Implying that only the dishonest people have need of any privacy ignores a basic property of the human psyche and sends a message of strong discomfort. We have a fundamental need for privacy. I lock the door when I go to the men's room, despite the fact that nothing secret happens in there. I just want to keep that activity to myself, I have a fundamental need to do so, and any society must respect that fundamental need for privacy. In every society that doesn't, citizens have responded with subterfuge and created their own private areas out of reach of the governmental surveillance, not because they are criminal, but because doing so is a fundamental human need.


Lastly, it could be noted that this argument is also commonly used by the authorities themselves to promote surveillance and censorship, while rejecting transparency and free speech.

Here's a fantastic article decimating the myth that if one has nothing to hide they have nothing to fear ... after all, EVERYONE has -something- to hide, no matter how trivial.

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

 

I get that.
Where do you draw the line though.
While operating a heavy potentially fatal piece of machinery in the public , can one expect a great degree of privacy?
It is a bit of a catch 22 if we rule out all types of technologies because of their potential harms/abuses we wont advance either.

 

Agreed for the most part but I think a line -does- need drawn and that line should be safety of the general public. For example, anyone working in a field affecting public safety should be subject to drug, alcohol and competence testing.

The supreme court decreed once a person leaves their home and steps into public they give up reasonable expectation of privacy as one can be recorded, observed, spied upon, numbered, categorized, labeled, supervised, chaperoned, accosted and much, much more.

I believe we can advance (albeit, perhaps somewhat slower and perhaps not in the direction some would prefer) and without any additional encroachment on personal privacy and rights ... NOT saying the camera is an infringement on anyone's right because I'm not an attorney (but I do have a little experience and knowledge with legal research) BUT it very may well be in regard to those who live/reside (sleep) in their trucks the majority of the time. I'd be very interested to see this camera ordeal get challenged in a court of law but as someone here wrote, it's probably NOT an infringement since no one is forcing the driver to work there. The only exception MAY be the drivers who had cameras put in their cab for no apparent reason when they weren't there in the first place when they accepted employment. Again, this is pure speculation on my behalf.

I just hate to see the baby tossed with the bathwater and I'd love to see non-manipulated stats showing any benefit in regard to public safety whereas companies and insurance companies would be disqualified from simply claiming the use of them is beneficial to the public without tangible proof.

A prime analogy of government going too far and wasting a bunch of cash on what appeared to be a good idea to some was the testing for drugs of welfare recipients in Florida. The program was a flop, cost the state more than it saved and resulted only in a minute number (by comparison of what was required) of positive test results.
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/e...welfare-texas-should-heed-floridas-lesson.ece

 

They ARE NOT paying me to sleep, eat, live my life in the truck while not driving but yet it still records. BTW it's Millis policy that no driver is allowed to talk on the phone with a blue tooth while driving. I cannot think of one driver that does not talk on the phone while driving at some point. (tada you just had a wreck, you were doing everything right to avoid it but since you were talking on your phone its now a preventable accident)

 

Also the cameras are set so sensitive that they are constantly sending video to our safety guy who has never driven a truck before. So everything is inflated. Hit a bump talking on your headset? He is going to tell you to stop talking to your friends and family that we only see 4 days a month.

 

That is a point I have made over and over.
Stupid company policies and incompetent evaluation of recorded data.
That is hardly the cameras problem.
I do see the point being made but it is really a case of wanting to play a game of see who can prove what now.
A real poor relationship when people get upset because they can no longer hid away what is happening.
If proper , pragmatic policies were enforce and competent individuals evaluated the footage I suppose there would not be so much resistance.
At my small company we have Drivecam and although drivers were not thrilled when I told them they were to become Movie stars , we have no complaints to mention.

 

I agree 100% with you. It's not so much the camera as the person on the other end abusing the system

 

I have been here for a year and never used my cell phone in the truck while driving. i do the same in my personal car. there is nothing that cant wait until i am done driving.

 

Unless, lets just say for example, you feel for some reason that your load is subject for hijacking. I understand that more than likely its just high valued loads, but, a thief is a thief and alot of people with good sense are not going to stop to make an emergency call under those conditions. That is also unsafe. The likely hood is probably very low, but, one to consider. Just wanted to put that out there.

 

When I started at Trugreen, we had Drivecams in the trucks for 2 years, until they took them out. They were older models that had to be downloaded daily via USB cable. I can attest that it is a horrible feeling having that thing there staring at you, nothing is wrong with taking a swig of water or pushing a preset on the radio by feel but these activities suddenly become risks to your job.