CDZ Privacy, does it exist anymore, and why is it not protected anymore ?

[Hiryuu]

Let's see now... The driver submitted a resume, and the company excepted everything about the driver in that resume upon their hiring him or her. The driver should know by training and character that he or she is an extension of the company brand and name. Then comes the pay package and benefits in which should be the incentive for the driver to do well, and for him or her to be loyal to the company worked for. If all these are in play, then the company and driver should get along just great together, and the expense or cost involved to work such an employee should be acceptable and profitable for both parties involved. If a company deploys technology to spy on it's employee's, then something is bad wrong with the hiring practices of the company (or) the company is a low baller in the industry therefore using every rotten tactic it can in order to try and work low payed unvetted employees as cheap as it can, and then using technology to babysit them afterwards.

Hard to call it spying when both parties know it is there. When a company hires an employee, that doesn't necessarily mean they get a key to the vault. If the company feels the need to protect their investment by monitoring the behavior of their employees, then who are we to argue? The employee can enjoy whatever privacy they may need by pulling over and turning the vehicle off. If they are unable to confine their activities to the desires of the business owners, while in possession or operation of the company's vehicle, then they are by all means not meeting the company's requirements.

 

[yiostheoy]

We are currently at war in a jihad with radial Islamists.

They are everywhere.

We need to ferret them out.

That's why.

 

[Defiant1]

Your right to privacy comes with your responsibility to keep your personal business private.

 

[GaryDog]

We are currently at war in a jihad with radial Islamists.

They are everywhere.

We need to ferret them out.

That's why.

So now the tires are going to bomb us? Noooooo!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This thread is indicative of the overall lack of awareness of our rights in this country.

The COTUS does not apply to individuals or companies, but ONLY to the government.

 

[beagle9]

Your right to privacy comes with your responsibility to keep your personal business private.

. How can you keep your personal business private if you are being spied on ? Before this gets out of hand, let's go back to the beginning just to be clear... The audio is the rub.. No company needs to listen to it's employee's conversations, otherwise in order to get the job done safely, reliable and on time. Video within reason is acceptable, and the video cams should only focus on the material or objects that need to be focused on or paid attention too by the company, otherwise in order to protect it's interest. Snooping by listening in on conversations without a judges order or warrant should be illegal or against the law. Period.

 

[beagle9]

This thread is indicative of the overall lack of awareness of our rights in this country.

The COTUS does not apply to individuals or companies, but ONLY to the government.

. This sort of thing was not a problem in the past, and that is why there is such a thing called the legislative process right, so why don't we start addressing the issues like we should again, and this before there is nothing left or worse we go back to 1861 in this nation ?

 

[beagle9]

Your right to privacy comes with your responsibility to keep your personal business private.

. So far (LOL) my friend tells me that the boss has been called a name in a conversation between drivers (oops). A wife told her husband that she got his jock itch cream (oops). A mother was talking to her son, and said a few curse words (oops). A friend of his called him (he answered hands free of course with the newest technology (Bluetooth) built into the FM radio with a mic mounted on the dash, where as it's easier than talking on a CB radio) and the friend was telling him about getting a colonoscopy, and how he thought that it may have done damage to his colon because he was in bad pain, and very sick now. (Oops).. Now should companies know all these things that seem to me to be very private conversations between family members or friends ? No they don't. I was made aware of these things for the purpose of using them as examples to be given to you all. I know, these are personal things given to us, but they were allowed for the purpose of this article or OP that is written here. They are real, and they are personal conversations between the parties involved. Another thing is that people who walk up to a truck don't know or realize that they are also being recorded if they converse with the driver.

Video pointed at the roadways (YES), but audio or the video pointed at a driver ? Why ?

 

[beagle9]

Let's see now... The driver submitted a resume, and the company excepted everything about the driver in that resume upon their hiring him or her. The driver should know by training and character that he or she is an extension of the company brand and name. Then comes the pay package and benefits in which should be the incentive for the driver to do well, and for him or her to be loyal to the company worked for. If all these are in play, then the company and driver should get along just great together, and the expense or cost involved to work such an employee should be acceptable and profitable for both parties involved. If a company deploys technology to spy on it's employee's, then something is bad wrong with the hiring practices of the company (or) the company is a low baller in the industry therefore using every rotten tactic it can in order to try and work low payed unvetted employees as cheap as it can, and then using technology to babysit them afterwards.

Hard to call it spying when both parties know it is there. When a company hires an employee, that doesn't necessarily mean they get a key to the vault. If the company feels the need to protect their investment by monitoring the behavior of their employees, then who are we to argue? The employee can enjoy whatever privacy they may need by pulling over and turning the vehicle off. If they are unable to confine their activities to the desires of the business owners, while in possession or operation of the company's vehicle, then they are by all means not meeting the company's requirements.

. Why should anyone have ever looked in on the slaves within the work place back in the 1800's or ever created many laws pertaining to the fair treatment of employee's etc. etc.etc. ? These things can be reviewed, and then worked out for all, but if not careful the same excuses that were made to justify so many bad things in the past, will resurface again, and again.

 

[Hiryuu]

Why should anyone have ever looked in on the slaves within the work place back in the 1800's or ever created many laws pertaining to the fair treatment of employee's etc. etc.etc. ? These things can be reviewed, and then worked out for all, but if not careful the same excuses that were made to justify so many bad things in the past, will resurface again, and again.

Having an audio recorder in the cab of a company vehicle is something the company shouldn't have a hard time doing. It isn't an inconvenience unless you are doing something you don't want your employer knowing you are doing. It doesn't have anything to do with fair treatment and the drivers can do whatever they want when they aren't on the clock. It's the company's vehicle, the company's cargo, the company's name and they are on the employer's clock. If they cannot manage to meet company standards while driving a company vehicle, why the heck would an employer ever give them the keys to start with?

 

[Holos]

The title of the thread is an indicator of the answer you are questioning about.

When privacy is considered an existential measure in reference to survivalist strategies, that is, in achieving resource security against any possibility of preying usurpation, it comes to be inevitably inefficient because its development process is prompted by a destabilizing absence (of stability). The "anymore" is truly "any more"; whatever would take attention of the individual away from the deemed threat, whatever hedonistic, progressive and wishful treat which is truly only desensitizing, sometimes temporary, but sometimes also unto complete desensitization (death).


However, when we consider it from the perspective of an investing protective measure from that which is already established and to that which will surely endure, instead of an individual or collective strife looming between bi-partisan conflicting success of either survival or predator, between escape and usurpation, reward and deserving punishment, then "anymore" is very specifically selected and not simply an extensive assortment of fluctuating boundaries to serve as counter-strategies for isolation or repel as in the case of existential privacy and its quantifiable or non-quantifiable "any more's".

Here is an analogy for clearer comprehension:

We've got two vases to pry.

One vase is empty and we want to ensure its fill.
The other vase is full and we want to ensure its fill.

Existentialist privacy would have it's vase empty to begin with, and would therefore attempt to primarily secure the vase-holder who assures themselves they, or others are capable of filling the void, or finding a substitute for it as it may come to be exposed again after the fill's usage. The value there sought to increase isn't established and has a continuing tendency to be lost.

Protective privacy would have it's vase full to begin with, and would therefore attempt to primarily secure the vase, and not the vase-holder nor a possible future fill and neither the current fill itself. In the vase of protective privacy, the fill of the vase, whatever it may be, is a secondary utility after that which composes the vase itself. The structure making its vase form is its primary fill and what consists of the value therefore increased from established manufactured (even the vase coming to shards wouldn't decrease its value).

 

[FA_Q2]

So, the OP outlines concern for the right to privacy but utterly ignores the right to property - the companies property and its ability to do with it as they please. If you do not like the conditions of the workplace (being recorded) then you can simply not work there. No one is forcing these drivers to work for that particular company.

If enough of the drivers get together they can even have it stopped by leveraging their power. That is how VOLUNTARY contracts work and the company is under no obligation to cease tracking and recording employees on company time.

Your right to privacy comes with your responsibility to keep your personal business private.

. So far (LOL) my friend tells me that the boss has been called a name in a conversation between drivers (oops). A wife told her husband that she got his jock itch cream (oops). A mother was talking to her son, and said a few curse words (oops). A friend of his called him (he answered hands free of course with the newest technology (Bluetooth) built into the FM radio with a mic mounted on the dash, where as it's easier than talking on a CB radio) and the friend was telling him about getting a colonoscopy, and how he thought that it may have done damage to his colon because he was in bad pain, and very sick now. (Oops).. Now should companies know all these things that seem to me to be very private conversations between family members or friends ? No they don't. I was made aware of these things for the purpose of using them as examples to be given to you all. I know, these are personal things given to us, but they were allowed for the purpose of this article or OP that is written here. They are real, and they are personal conversations between the parties involved. Another thing is that people who walk up to a truck don't know or realize that they are also being recorded if they converse with the driver.

Video pointed at the roadways (YES), but audio or the video pointed at a driver ? Why ?

They could, you know, NOT have these conversations on company time in a setting where they KNOW they are being recorded.

What gives these drivers the right to demand that they have control over how the company operates its own business?

 

[FA_Q2]

This thread is indicative of the overall lack of awareness of our rights in this country.

The COTUS does not apply to individuals or companies, but ONLY to the government.

The problem, IMHO, is FAR deeper than that.

The issue is that people do not understand what rights even are. Here is an example of someone thinking that a right includes telling other people what they can and cannot do with their property or under an agreement that is willfully entered into by all participants.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Recently a trucking company decided to place cams in their trucks, and to hardwire them in so that the cams will come on when the trucks start up (says a driver who works for the company who has done this). He said that the cam is no problem as it points outward or looks out the window for the purpose of recording the actions of motorist who are operating in and around the vehicle, and for the company to assess the truck drivers driving habits or skills for the purpose of risk management and/or for it to act as a recorded witness to a possible accident taking place. All good right ? Yes (Good).

Now here is the rub in which the driver or drivers are complaining about with this new idea. They are all livid because the thing is also recording voice or conversations that are taking place amongst the drivers in these trucks. Now I ask why would a company want to do this ? The drivers are in an uproar about it now, but the answer towards them are "If anyone doesn't like what's going on, then hit the road". Wow, wait really? Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ? Shouldn't that be their only concern, and not what's going on when a driver is having a conversation that is expected to have some semblance of privacy involved ?

I thought when told about this "Wow", that is just crazy. So are we now living more and more in a police state, and why is this happening now ? Are there people in offices listening to these conversations, who might take such conversations, and then abuse the right of privacy in order to hurt or fire the individual in which they might not like (i.e. not pertaining to his or her job or job performance) ? Otherwise so they would take the information learned and use it to do harm to an individual ? What guarantees should a company have to give in writing, that the information gained in no way will be used in ways to cause harm or how long will such information be held by the company & by whom is the information being held by ? A company should be held liable for any damage that might occur to a driver or individual if such information is found to be gained for political or hateful purposes, and/or is abused, or is used inappropriately right ????....

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space, and it should be respected by any company as just that, and not to become liken to an office in order to bug and eavesdrop on a driver right ????. Shouldn't a company have to have an agreement drawn up by a lawyer in which the individual/driver, and the company should have to sign off on ??? I thought a warrant of suspicion has to be ordered up, and then signed off on by a judge before someone can record private conversations between individuals ???

The whole thing stinks to me, and it sounds disgusting enough of a situation for sure, but what do you all think ? Some concerned drivers would like to know. I will give them your assessments.

The doctrine of privacy being protected exists solely between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities, such as an employer/employee relationship.

Indeed, even with regard to government potentially violating a citizen's right to privacy, there is no expectation of privacy in the work place, or most other public places.

Consequently, a business placing cameras in the cab of a commercial vehicle ‘violates’ no one’s privacy; the notion of ‘privacy’ in such a context has never been entitled to ‘protection.’

 

[HUGGY]

Recently a trucking company decided to place cams in their trucks, and to hardwire them in so that the cams will come on when the trucks start up (says a driver who works for the company who has done this). He said that the cam is no problem as it points outward or looks out the window for the purpose of recording the actions of motorist who are operating in and around the vehicle, and for the company to assess the truck drivers driving habits or skills for the purpose of risk management and/or for it to act as a recorded witness to a possible accident taking place. All good right ? Yes (Good).

Now here is the rub in which the driver or drivers are complaining about with this new idea. They are all livid because the thing is also recording voice or conversations that are taking place amongst the drivers in these trucks. Now I ask why would a company want to do this ? The drivers are in an uproar about it now, but the answer towards them are "If anyone doesn't like what's going on, then hit the road". Wow, wait really? Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ? Shouldn't that be their only concern, and not what's going on when a driver is having a conversation that is expected to have some semblance of privacy involved ?

I thought when told about this "Wow", that is just crazy. So are we now living more and more in a police state, and why is this happening now ? Are there people in offices listening to these conversations, who might take such conversations, and then abuse the right of privacy in order to hurt or fire the individual in which they might not like (i.e. not pertaining to his or her job or job performance) ? Otherwise so they would take the information learned and use it to do harm to an individual ? What guarantees should a company have to give in writing, that the information gained in no way will be used in ways to cause harm or how long will such information be held by the company & by whom is the information being held by ? A company should be held liable for any damage that might occur to a driver or individual if such information is found to be gained for political or hateful purposes, and/or is abused, or is used inappropriately right ????....

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space, and it should be respected by any company as just that, and not to become liken to an office in order to bug and eavesdrop on a driver right ????. Shouldn't a company have to have an agreement drawn up by a lawyer in which the individual/driver, and the company should have to sign off on ??? I thought a warrant of suspicion has to be ordered up, and then signed off on by a judge before someone can record private conversations between individuals ???

The whole thing stinks to me, and it sounds disgusting enough of a situation for sure, but what do you all think ? Some concerned drivers would like to know. I will give them your assessments.

You are wrong. The entire truck is the company's property. There are plenty of truck driving jobs where the owners don't snoop. OR a driver can save up and buy his own rig. No one is FORCED to work for a company that wants to know everything that happens in their equipment.

 

[beagle9]

So, the OP outlines concern for the right to privacy but utterly ignores the right to property - the companies property and its ability to do with it as they please. If you do not like the conditions of the workplace (being recorded) then you can simply not work there. No one is forcing these drivers to work for that particular company.

If enough of the drivers get together they can even have it stopped by leveraging their power. That is how VOLUNTARY contracts work and the company is under no obligation to cease tracking and recording employees on company time.

Your right to privacy comes with your responsibility to keep your personal business private.

. So far (LOL) my friend tells me that the boss has been called a name in a conversation between drivers (oops). A wife told her husband that she got his jock itch cream (oops). A mother was talking to her son, and said a few curse words (oops). A friend of his called him (he answered hands free of course with the newest technology (Bluetooth) built into the FM radio with a mic mounted on the dash, where as it's easier than talking on a CB radio) and the friend was telling him about getting a colonoscopy, and how he thought that it may have done damage to his colon because he was in bad pain, and very sick now. (Oops).. Now should companies know all these things that seem to me to be very private conversations between family members or friends ? No they don't. I was made aware of these things for the purpose of using them as examples to be given to you all. I know, these are personal things given to us, but they were allowed for the purpose of this article or OP that is written here. They are real, and they are personal conversations between the parties involved. Another thing is that people who walk up to a truck don't know or realize that they are also being recorded if they converse with the driver.

Video pointed at the roadways (YES), but audio or the video pointed at a driver ? Why ?

They could, you know, NOT have these conversations on company time in a setting where they KNOW they are being recorded.

What gives these drivers the right to demand that they have control over how the company operates its own business?

You make a false statement, where as you said that I want privacy to be up held over and above the companies interest that is to protect it's investment or property. WRONG. I have said that there is a balance or line that allows for both to exist together, but you all don't want to recognise that as being the healthy balance in it all. Video taping or recording is enough, where as there is no need to be listening to people's private conversation with others.

 

[beagle9]

Recently a trucking company decided to place cams in their trucks, and to hardwire them in so that the cams will come on when the trucks start up (says a driver who works for the company who has done this). He said that the cam is no problem as it points outward or looks out the window for the purpose of recording the actions of motorist who are operating in and around the vehicle, and for the company to assess the truck drivers driving habits or skills for the purpose of risk management and/or for it to act as a recorded witness to a possible accident taking place. All good right ? Yes (Good).

Now here is the rub in which the driver or drivers are complaining about with this new idea. They are all livid because the thing is also recording voice or conversations that are taking place amongst the drivers in these trucks. Now I ask why would a company want to do this ? The drivers are in an uproar about it now, but the answer towards them are "If anyone doesn't like what's going on, then hit the road". Wow, wait really? Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ? Shouldn't that be their only concern, and not what's going on when a driver is having a conversation that is expected to have some semblance of privacy involved ?

I thought when told about this "Wow", that is just crazy. So are we now living more and more in a police state, and why is this happening now ? Are there people in offices listening to these conversations, who might take such conversations, and then abuse the right of privacy in order to hurt or fire the individual in which they might not like (i.e. not pertaining to his or her job or job performance) ? Otherwise so they would take the information learned and use it to do harm to an individual ? What guarantees should a company have to give in writing, that the information gained in no way will be used in ways to cause harm or how long will such information be held by the company & by whom is the information being held by ? A company should be held liable for any damage that might occur to a driver or individual if such information is found to be gained for political or hateful purposes, and/or is abused, or is used inappropriately right ????....

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space, and it should be respected by any company as just that, and not to become liken to an office in order to bug and eavesdrop on a driver right ????. Shouldn't a company have to have an agreement drawn up by a lawyer in which the individual/driver, and the company should have to sign off on ??? I thought a warrant of suspicion has to be ordered up, and then signed off on by a judge before someone can record private conversations between individuals ???

The whole thing stinks to me, and it sounds disgusting enough of a situation for sure, but what do you all think ? Some concerned drivers would like to know. I will give them your assessments.

You are wrong. The entire truck is the company's property. There are plenty of truck driving jobs where the owners don't snoop. OR a driver can save up and buy his own rig. No one is FORCED to work for a company that wants to know everything that happens in their equipment.

. Ok then apply you logic to everything then, in which includes government intrusion, communist activities, socialism or anything else that people are up in arms about. America is falling fast, and you had best believe it.

 

[GaryDog]

If privacy doesn't exist anymore it's because the population doesn't want it. (Facebook, instagram, snapchat, twitter, location settings on iphones, etc.).

 

[beagle9]

If privacy doesn't exist anymore it's because the population doesn't want it. (Facebook, instagram, snapchat, twitter, location settings on iphones, etc.).

. I don't think it's a matter that the population doesn't want it, but rather when it raises it's ugly head, then people are TOLD they have no choice. That's what's been going on. People need to make a stand, but I think they got everyone right where they want them finally.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This thread is indicative of the overall lack of awareness of our rights in this country.

The COTUS does not apply to individuals or companies, but ONLY to the government.

. This sort of thing was not a problem in the past, and that is why there is such a thing called the legislative process right, so why don't we start addressing the issues like we should again, and this before there is nothing left or worse we go back to 1861 in this nation ?

You WANT the government telling private companies that they can't monitor their employees?