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

[HUGGY]

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

We were tested for our resolve after 9/11 and fear won the day. The Patriot Act and its subsequent Act passed with just a passing whimper. This is why I reject all the crying about terrorism.

 

[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.).

. All those you mention have privacy policies... Why ? If someone breached your Facebook, Instagram or other, then you would be steaming hot mad wouldn't you ? But it's ok with you all in other instances, and even when it's not nessesary therefore causing (a violation of ones privacy) ??????? How about some consistency in this nation again please.

 

[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 ?

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

. Monitor in what way ??????

 

[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.).

We were tested for our resolve after 9/11 and fear won the day. The Patriot Act and its subsequent Act passed with just a passing whimper. This is why I reject all the crying about terrorism.

. Yes the terrorist have WON or is it just an excuse being used now ??????

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

. All those you mention have privacy policies... Why ? If someone breached your Facebook, Instagram or other, then you would be steaming hot mad wouldn't you ? But it's ok with you all in other instances, and even when it's not nessesary therefore causing (a violation of ones privacy) ??????? How about some consistency in this nation again please.

Why do you think you have an expectation of privacy in a company car, for example?

You don't.


See that's the problem with some people,t hey simply do not understand their rights. The expectation of privacy inside a company car belongs to the COMPANY having an expectation of privacy from the GOVERNMENT, very similar to a message board, where a poster does NOT have the right to post whatever they like, the right of free speech belongs to the message board itself, which has the right to post whatever THEY like without the government interfering.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I guess I've been picturing this trucker as a long-haul trucker who might spend 24 hours or more in the cab on a trip. The cab is his home. Cell phone calls home, talking on the radio (if they still do that), talking to a passenger (a lot of times they take a family member or even a hitch hiker) on a long trip shouldn't be recorded. Now, if the trucker is a delivery driver working an 8 hour shift and then goes home each evening, that's a whole different story. I've always had jobs where my words and actions were expected to be professional while on the job and that's part of what I'm paid for.
For long distance truckers, audio shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

I guess I've been picturing this trucker as a long-haul trucker who might spend 24 hours or more in the cab on a trip. The cab is his home. Cell phone calls home, talking on the radio (if they still do that), talking to a passenger (a lot of times they take a family member or even a hitch hiker) on a long trip shouldn't be recorded. Now, if the trucker is a delivery driver working an 8 hour shift and then goes home each evening, that's a whole different story. I've always had jobs where my words and actions were expected to be professional while on the job and that's part of what I'm paid for.
For long distance truckers, audio shouldn't be allowed.

That isn't for the government to decide.

Truckers could EASILY stop all companies from doing so, by simply not working for companies that do so.

Also, no truck drivers don't spend 24 hours in the cab of a truck, because they are not allowed to by law, they can only drive so many hours a day. Also, most companies do not permit passengers of ANY kind, for insurance purposes, so they definitely have a legitimate need to make sure that isn't happening.

 

[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.).

. All those you mention have privacy policies... Why ? If someone breached your Facebook, Instagram or other, then you would be steaming hot mad wouldn't you ? But it's ok with you all in other instances, and even when it's not nessesary therefore causing (a violation of ones privacy) ??????? How about some consistency in this nation again please.

Why do you think you have an expectation of privacy in a company car, for example?

You don't.


See that's the problem with some people,t hey simply do not understand their rights. The expectation of privacy inside a company car belongs to the COMPANY having an expectation of privacy from the GOVERNMENT, very similar to a message board, where a poster does NOT have the right to post whatever they like, the right of free speech belongs to the message board itself, which has the right to post whatever THEY like without the government interfering.

. Message boards are a poor analogy, and yes it should be illegal for a company to listen in on your conversations anywhere. The only justification should be due to suspicion of a crime or the fear that a crime might be committed. Then it must or should be documented as such. If you are heading home in your company car, and your wife calls you to talk about the hot date set up for the weekend, then it is no business of theirs at all. The sacrifices made by employee's for companies should come with some respect, and that is one of them. What are all these companies now, a bunch of perverts wanting to listen in on their employees private conversations ?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

. All those you mention have privacy policies... Why ? If someone breached your Facebook, Instagram or other, then you would be steaming hot mad wouldn't you ? But it's ok with you all in other instances, and even when it's not nessesary therefore causing (a violation of ones privacy) ??????? How about some consistency in this nation again please.

Why do you think you have an expectation of privacy in a company car, for example?

You don't.


See that's the problem with some people,t hey simply do not understand their rights. The expectation of privacy inside a company car belongs to the COMPANY having an expectation of privacy from the GOVERNMENT, very similar to a message board, where a poster does NOT have the right to post whatever they like, the right of free speech belongs to the message board itself, which has the right to post whatever THEY like without the government interfering.

. Message boards are a poor analogy, and yes it should be illegal for a company to listen in on your conversations anywhere. The only justification should be due to suspicion of a crime or the fear that a crime might committed. Then it must or should be documented as such. If you are heading home in your company car, and your wife calls you to talk about the hot date set up for the weekend, then it is no business of theirs at all. The sacrifices made by employee's for companies should come with some respect, and that is one of them. What are all these companies now, a bunch of perverts wanting to listen in on their employees private conversations ?

Then don't work for companies that would do such, I certainly wouldn't

But that has nothing to do with the government or your rights.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I guess I've been picturing this trucker as a long-haul trucker who might spend 24 hours or more in the cab on a trip. The cab is his home. Cell phone calls home, talking on the radio (if they still do that), talking to a passenger (a lot of times they take a family member or even a hitch hiker) on a long trip shouldn't be recorded. Now, if the trucker is a delivery driver working an 8 hour shift and then goes home each evening, that's a whole different story. I've always had jobs where my words and actions were expected to be professional while on the job and that's part of what I'm paid for.
For long distance truckers, audio shouldn't be allowed.

That isn't for the government to decide.

Truckers could EASILY stop all companies from doing so, by simply not working for companies that do so.

Also, no truck drivers don't spend 24 hours in the cab of a truck, because they are not allowed to by law, they can only drive so many hours a day. Also, most companies do not permit passengers of ANY kind, for insurance purposes, so they definitely have a legitimate need to make sure that isn't happening.

I agree it's not for the government to decide, but I didn't know that was the issue. And yes, I agree people who wont work for them would discourage the practice. But don't tell me about truckers. A lot of cabs have bunks and they do drive and sleep in them. They can't drive more than a certain number of hours, but they aren't staying at the Motel 6. Insurance companies can say what they will, but truckers often have a passenger. Maybe they're all independents, but I highly doubt it.

 

[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.).

. All those you mention have privacy policies... Why ? If someone breached your Facebook, Instagram or other, then you would be steaming hot mad wouldn't you ? But it's ok with you all in other instances, and even when it's not nessesary therefore causing (a violation of ones privacy) ??????? How about some consistency in this nation again please.

Why do you think you have an expectation of privacy in a company car, for example?

You don't.


See that's the problem with some people,t hey simply do not understand their rights. The expectation of privacy inside a company car belongs to the COMPANY having an expectation of privacy from the GOVERNMENT, very similar to a message board, where a poster does NOT have the right to post whatever they like, the right of free speech belongs to the message board itself, which has the right to post whatever THEY like without the government interfering.

. Message boards are a poor analogy, and yes it should be illegal for a company to listen in on your conversations anywhere. The only justification should be due to suspicion of a crime or the fear that a crime might committed. Then it must or should be documented as such. If you are heading home in your company car, and your wife calls you to talk about the hot date set up for the weekend, then it is no business of theirs at all. The sacrifices made by employee's for companies should come with some respect, and that is one of them. What are all these companies now, a bunch of perverts wanting to listen in on their employees private conversations ?

Then don't work for companies that would do such, I certainly wouldn't

But that has nothing to do with the government or your rights.

. Ok, here is one for you all, and I will use all of you all's thinking on the matter... How about motels or hotels, and there interest in not having their property destroyed eh ? Why can't the same excuses be used for them to bug and put video cams in the rooms ? I mean it's their property right, and they want it protected right ? What's the difference?

 

[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.

I guess I've been picturing this trucker as a long-haul trucker who might spend 24 hours or more in the cab on a trip. The cab is his home. Cell phone calls home, talking on the radio (if they still do that), talking to a passenger (a lot of times they take a family member or even a hitch hiker) on a long trip shouldn't be recorded. Now, if the trucker is a delivery driver working an 8 hour shift and then goes home each evening, that's a whole different story. I've always had jobs where my words and actions were expected to be professional while on the job and that's part of what I'm paid for.
For long distance truckers, audio shouldn't be allowed.

. Who said that he isn't a long haul trucker ?

 

[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.).

. All those you mention have privacy policies... Why ? If someone breached your Facebook, Instagram or other, then you would be steaming hot mad wouldn't you ? But it's ok with you all in other instances, and even when it's not nessesary therefore causing (a violation of ones privacy) ??????? How about some consistency in this nation again please.

Why do you think you have an expectation of privacy in a company car, for example?

You don't.


See that's the problem with some people,t hey simply do not understand their rights. The expectation of privacy inside a company car belongs to the COMPANY having an expectation of privacy from the GOVERNMENT, very similar to a message board, where a poster does NOT have the right to post whatever they like, the right of free speech belongs to the message board itself, which has the right to post whatever THEY like without the government interfering.

. Message boards are a poor analogy, and yes it should be illegal for a company to listen in on your conversations anywhere. The only justification should be due to suspicion of a crime or the fear that a crime might committed. Then it must or should be documented as such. If you are heading home in your company car, and your wife calls you to talk about the hot date set up for the weekend, then it is no business of theirs at all. The sacrifices made by employee's for companies should come with some respect, and that is one of them. What are all these companies now, a bunch of perverts wanting to listen in on their employees private conversations ?

Then don't work for companies that would do such, I certainly wouldn't

But that has nothing to do with the government or your rights.

. Wouldn't it be best if the companies stopped a practice or refine it if needed ? Why is it that everything the wealthy or powerful want is some how right no matter what, and everyone else is just wrong no matter what ?

 

[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?

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.

No, my statement was exactly what you want as there is nothing to balance. There is no right of the worker over the truck whatsoever. You want to eliminate property rights in the name of a right that is non-existent. You do not get to decide what is 'enough' - the owner of that property does and if you do not like it then simply do not deal with them.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I guess I've been picturing this trucker as a long-haul trucker who might spend 24 hours or more in the cab on a trip. The cab is his home. Cell phone calls home, talking on the radio (if they still do that), talking to a passenger (a lot of times they take a family member or even a hitch hiker) on a long trip shouldn't be recorded. Now, if the trucker is a delivery driver working an 8 hour shift and then goes home each evening, that's a whole different story. I've always had jobs where my words and actions were expected to be professional while on the job and that's part of what I'm paid for.
For long distance truckers, audio shouldn't be allowed.

That isn't for the government to decide.

Truckers could EASILY stop all companies from doing so, by simply not working for companies that do so.

Also, no truck drivers don't spend 24 hours in the cab of a truck, because they are not allowed to by law, they can only drive so many hours a day. Also, most companies do not permit passengers of ANY kind, for insurance purposes, so they definitely have a legitimate need to make sure that isn't happening.

I agree it's not for the government to decide, but I didn't know that was the issue. And yes, I agree people who wont work for them would discourage the practice. But don't tell me about truckers. A lot of cabs have bunks and they do drive and sleep in them. They can't drive more than a certain number of hours, but they aren't staying at the Motel 6. Insurance companies can say what they will, but truckers often have a passenger. Maybe they're all independents, but I highly doubt it.

The cameras, according to the OP, are not on when the vehicle is off.

 

[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.

No, my statement was exactly what you want as there is nothing to balance. There is no right of the worker over the truck whatsoever. You want to eliminate property rights in the name of a right that is non-existent. You do not get to decide what is 'enough' - the owner of that property does and if you do not like it then simply do not deal with them.

Answer the post about the motels & hotels... It's the same thing. One thing leads to another... I mean here we are living in an age where the libs want to allow a boy or man into the girls or ladies restrooms. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The problem is that people like you are wiping America off the map.

 

[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.

I guess I've been picturing this trucker as a long-haul trucker who might spend 24 hours or more in the cab on a trip. The cab is his home. Cell phone calls home, talking on the radio (if they still do that), talking to a passenger (a lot of times they take a family member or even a hitch hiker) on a long trip shouldn't be recorded. Now, if the trucker is a delivery driver working an 8 hour shift and then goes home each evening, that's a whole different story. I've always had jobs where my words and actions were expected to be professional while on the job and that's part of what I'm paid for.
For long distance truckers, audio shouldn't be allowed.

That isn't for the government to decide.

Truckers could EASILY stop all companies from doing so, by simply not working for companies that do so.

Also, no truck drivers don't spend 24 hours in the cab of a truck, because they are not allowed to by law, they can only drive so many hours a day. Also, most companies do not permit passengers of ANY kind, for insurance purposes, so they definitely have a legitimate need to make sure that isn't happening.

I agree it's not for the government to decide, but I didn't know that was the issue. And yes, I agree people who wont work for them would discourage the practice. But don't tell me about truckers. A lot of cabs have bunks and they do drive and sleep in them. They can't drive more than a certain number of hours, but they aren't staying at the Motel 6. Insurance companies can say what they will, but truckers often have a passenger. Maybe they're all independents, but I highly doubt it.

The cameras, according to the OP, are not on when the vehicle is off.

. That's only because a driver can turn it off, but not sure if he will get in trouble or not for that one. He hasn't crossed that bridge yet.

 

[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?

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.

No, my statement was exactly what you want as there is nothing to balance. There is no right of the worker over the truck whatsoever. You want to eliminate property rights in the name of a right that is non-existent. You do not get to decide what is 'enough' - the owner of that property does and if you do not like it then simply do not deal with them.

Answer the post about the motels & hotels... It's the same thing. One thing leads to another... I mean here we are living in an age where the libs want to allow a boy or man into the girls or ladies restrooms. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The problem is that people like you are wiping America off the map.

More bullshit.

'People' like me certainly are not pushing this and you are making bald faced assumptions based on your 2 dimensional view. Try and focus on what was actually said rather than what you think I support.

The point about hotels and motels is an asinine analogy. With a motel or hotel you are taking provisional ownership over the property when you rent it for specific length of time under specific circumstances. It is essentially your property with provisional rules applied to how you treat it.

Further, if a hotel were to actually create an agreement with the customer that the premises they are renting would be video taped (as you will note that the common areas already are but they are not part of that rented space) then that would not only be perfectly constitutional - it would be totally legal as you are entering into that agreement WILLINGLY. Of course, ANY hotel doing so would see no business at all and go out of business almost immediately.

That is what freedom actually looks like - not the government demanding that YOUR standards for another property be followed but you as the customer actually enforcing that standard yourself by choosing who you associate with and who you do not. The only place the government has in those agreements is that you are clearly informed of what you are agreeing to and that all parties are actual willing participants. Beyond that it is your choice to engage in business with that entity or not.

What you advocate is the exact opposite of actual freedom - government control to impose what you want on another party.

 

[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.

. 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.

No, my statement was exactly what you want as there is nothing to balance. There is no right of the worker over the truck whatsoever. You want to eliminate property rights in the name of a right that is non-existent. You do not get to decide what is 'enough' - the owner of that property does and if you do not like it then simply do not deal with them.

Answer the post about the motels & hotels... It's the same thing. One thing leads to another... I mean here we are living in an age where the libs want to allow a boy or man into the girls or ladies restrooms. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The problem is that people like you are wiping America off the map.

More bullshit.

'People' like me certainly are not pushing this and you are making bald faced assumptions based on your 2 dimensional view. Try and focus on what was actually said rather than what you think I support.

The point about hotels and motels is an asinine analogy. With a motel or hotel you are taking provisional ownership over the property when you rent it for specific length of time under specific circumstances. It is essentially your property with provisional rules applied to how you treat it.

Further, if a hotel were to actually create an agreement with the customer that the premises they are renting would be video taped (as you will note that the common areas already are but they are not part of that rented space) then that would not only be perfectly constitutional - it would be totally legal as you are entering into that agreement WILLINGLY. Of course, ANY hotel doing so would see no business at all and go out of business almost immediately.

That is what freedom actually looks like - not the government demanding that YOUR standards for another property be followed but you as the customer actually enforcing that standard yourself by choosing who you associate with and who you do not. The only place the government has in those agreements is that you are clearly informed of what you are agreeing to and that all parties are actual willing participants. Beyond that it is your choice to engage in business with that entity or not.

What you advocate is the exact opposite of actual freedom - government control to impose what you want on another party.

. How do you get that I advocate government control over something, when I'm against any kind of control that Rob's us of our liberties and freedoms?

However when corporations or big business start acting as a bad government would, then who is there or will be there to push back against those things in which it (corporations) had no need of before, but then all of a sudden they need of it now ? I look at the historical history of the nation, and I study it to see just how we made it this far without the things in play that we are seeing come about today or that we have today, and it's very easy to see why we are seeing what we are seeing today... It isn't right nor do we need to go down these roads as a people or nation when looking back at our history. The employees all say they have absolutely no problem with the video, but they don't think that the audio is nessesary because they see it as a violation of their privacy concerning their freedom of speech. Now how is it that something like that was never needed before in the nation, and that almost all the employees (ALL OF THEM) are against the audio part of the set up, but then here you are an advocate of yet another liberty or privacy taken away in this nation ?
Privacy doesn't have to be written down any where in order to know what it is or how it should be handled in a civilized society or nation, and all one has to do is look at the historical context of it to be on the right side of the issue.

This nation returning to the 1860's when it comes to the word (((property))) is quite interesting indeed. Putting your speak in chains & bondage, and this for controlling it in order to control the citizen, human being or person is quite interesting indeed. A listening device set amongst the new modern day slaves in order to control their discussion of the issues over a CB etc. reeps of modern day slave tactics that are used on people out of fears that the plantation owner (corporation or big business) is losing control of them or could lose control of them. Why these new fears in today's society if the theme was that the terrorist didn't win or is this the corporations using the issue to "never let a good crisis go to waist" type of push for better control now ?

 

[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.

. 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.

No, my statement was exactly what you want as there is nothing to balance. There is no right of the worker over the truck whatsoever. You want to eliminate property rights in the name of a right that is non-existent. You do not get to decide what is 'enough' - the owner of that property does and if you do not like it then simply do not deal with them.

Answer the post about the motels & hotels... It's the same thing. One thing leads to another... I mean here we are living in an age where the libs want to allow a boy or man into the girls or ladies restrooms. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The problem is that people like you are wiping America off the map.

More bullshit.

'People' like me certainly are not pushing this and you are making bald faced assumptions based on your 2 dimensional view. Try and focus on what was actually said rather than what you think I support.

The point about hotels and motels is an asinine analogy. With a motel or hotel you are taking provisional ownership over the property when you rent it for specific length of time under specific circumstances. It is essentially your property with provisional rules applied to how you treat it.

Further, if a hotel were to actually create an agreement with the customer that the premises they are renting would be video taped (as you will note that the common areas already are but they are not part of that rented space) then that would not only be perfectly constitutional - it would be totally legal as you are entering into that agreement WILLINGLY. Of course, ANY hotel doing so would see no business at all and go out of business almost immediately.

That is what freedom actually looks like - not the government demanding that YOUR standards for another property be followed but you as the customer actually enforcing that standard yourself by choosing who you associate with and who you do not. The only place the government has in those agreements is that you are clearly informed of what you are agreeing to and that all parties are actual willing participants. Beyond that it is your choice to engage in business with that entity or not.

What you advocate is the exact opposite of actual freedom - government control to impose what you want on another party.

. Why was my hotel/motel analogy wrong ? It's the same thing. Both are dealing with property, and the property is then being occupied by someone who has the ability to damage the property without the ownerships knowledge until it is to late. The trucking company actually has far less of a risk in the situation than the hotel/motel ownership does, because the company knows it's employee's where as the hotel/motel ownership doesn't have a clue who could actually burn his or her place to the ground, create a meth lab inside the room or just destroy the room and leave. If insurance companies told hotel/motel ownerships that they had to place cams and listening devices in the rooms or they get no insurance, then trust me you would have these places attempting to do so, and then justifying it in every way that it can.
Then it comes down to the usage of the technology by the users as to how it will be abused or not be abused is the question that can't be answered until to late. I mean look at what happened to Nixon for bugging something, and the fear was not the bug itself, but it was the fears of how the information would be interpreted or used as a weapon at a later date in which caused the huge trouble. A listening device is like a gun, where as it's not the device that is the problem, but rather it's what someone does with it that causes the serious problems. These situations may need some sort of rules or oversight that outlines how such technology is to be used, and how it is to be deployed, and to what justifies it's usage by the person or persons wanting to use it.