Amazon: We see you when you're Peeing, We know when you're unsafe...

[kelvinhall05]

29 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

because that's on work grounds, work devices. This is personal vehicles. Does your job install a camera in your personal car and watch your face while you drive to work?

Irrelevant whether it's a personal vehicle or not. It is effectively their workplace; their entire job is based around that vehicle. It makes complete sense that Amazon would want to monitor them while they're on work hours.

 

And your second point isn't very good either because driving to work =/= driving being 90% of your entire job.

[CarlBar]

6 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

I don’t defend them at all. If it is as you say a hated company, why is it now so huge?

 

Look up your history, the companies that spawned the UK's first labour laws where the biggest of their day. It was the very  things they did to their employees that made them able to target so big that where the target of those laws.

 

Labour Laws exist to force companies to act against their own self-interest when not doing so would be acting unacceptably against the self-interest of their employees.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Basically every minimum wage worker that uses a money till, those almost always have a camera (multiple) pointing at them and around them. Not that this is the only use case for cameras watching workers or being in work environment. I can't walk in to my office building without going in to view of multiple cameras and if I go in the to the actual datacenter I'm covered by multiple angles and are used for my safety monitoring not just security, something could happen to me and someone would see it.

 

Again i think the worry is, what else will amazon use it for.

 

Great example. A driver in the cab on the road is normally unable to be heard by anyone around them. if they're having a bad day thats when they might have a grumble about their bosses. Every employee in private grumbles about their employer from time to time. It's an accepted part of things. But in theory Amazon could now observe and record this and then use it to discipline or fire the driver.

 

Most security camera's that most people have watching them when they work, no one has any worries that they'll be accessed or used outside of very specific circumstances, (that by and large the majority of people have no issues with). The question comes back to will amazon follow that model or start using it for other things.

[poochyena]

11 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

A camera facing a driver isn't watching the road, it isn't seeing if they pretended to deliver and put the package in the back to steal, it isn't watching their speed or braking or driving habits. It's literally just watching the driver's face.

lmao, so you think they are doing it for the lulz? They ARE doing it for those reasons.

[CarlBar]

51 minutes ago, kelvinhall05 said:

Irrelevant whether it's a personal vehicle or not. It is effectively their workplace; their entire job is based around that vehicle. It makes complete sense that Amazon would want to monitor them while they're on work hours.

 

And what if they're monitoring them while they';'re not on work hours, or are on holiday with their family, or just out grocery shopping.

 

Alternatively, what if the vehicle is part of a fleet of stuff owned by a contractor that is also used for non-amazon deliveries. Is it right that Amazon can now monitor those?

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

nope these are 3rd party delivery companies delivering amazon packages. Not all, but most of these drivers are using their own personal vehicles for it. I have 5 kids so a lot of household essentials delivered, and it either comes from a UPS truck or a personal vehicle, about 50/50 between the 2. Rarely if ever do i actually have an amazon delivery van come to my house.

because that's on work grounds, work devices. This is personal vehicles. Does your job install a camera in your personal car and watch your face while you drive to work?
 

 

1. See I don't even think it's wrong in all situations. Let's take a major trucking company, like Averitt Express. Their sole job is trucking, trucking, trucking. They do nothing but drive all day every day. And with a semi truck being particularly large and therefore more dangerous, a camera watching for a yawn is entirely reasonable. So why could it be an issue for Amazon? Because that's not all they do. They are a tech company, highly invested in DATA. So I don't trust them to be collecting all this new data and just assume they will only use it for safety.

2. Exactly

being perfectly honest I hadn't even considered weed, but then bad driving as a result would be part of the discussion already. I do agree the crux of the matter is the details of the contract, but I think there is an inherent difference with amazon being in the data business. normal surveillance companies or trucking companies aren't in the business of selling data, so there's no incentive to misuse the connected data.

so I'm not an expert on cameras, so I hadn't heard of these discarding loop systems. IF Amazon is using that, I'd be alright with that depending on what they qualify as an event and ofc the terms of the contract. If there is saved data or continuous monitoring however, I'm still against it given Amazon's vested interest in Data

I’m not very familiar either I used a term more often used for security systems.  I was talking about the link posted in the comment I was replying to.  I get the impression the Amazon system recorded a lot more than even the system for semi truck drivers being complained about in the link. 

[Donut417]

7 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

But in theory Amazon could now observe and record this and then use it to discipline or fire the driver.

Depends on how that Union vote goes. A Union could completely break Amazon's current business model. Also, Amazon could potentially scare off people from applying. We recently just lost an employee at the job, today was her last day. The boss even told us that the temp agencies are having hard times finding us replacements. As we do temp to hire to fill positions. Plus we are entering busy season and need some extra hands. But the State of Michigan keeps extending unemployment and no one wants to work. 

 

Amazon could find themselves in that situation. Where they have many positions to fill but no one willing to fill them. 

[CarlBar]

Just now, poochyena said:

lmao, so you think they are doing it for the lulz? They ARE doing it for those reasons.

 

And how does a camera watching the drivers face do anything about any of that. Like i said before these sorts of camera's conceptually aren't somthing i have an issue with, (just what else amazon might do with them), but he's not wrong that a camera inside the cab does nothing about any of that. For that matter trying to sue camera evidance for things like speed or braking would be a lot dodgier in court than a tachometer system.

[CarlBar]

Just now, Donut417 said:

Depends on how that Union vote goes. A Union could completely break Amazon's current business model. Also, Amazon could potentially scare off people from applying. We recently just lost an employee at the job, today was her last day. The boss even told us that the temp agencies are having hard times finding us replacements. As we do temp to hire to fill positions. Plus we are entering busy season and need some extra hands. But the State of Michigan keeps extending unemployment and no one wants to work. 

 

Amazon could find themselves in that situation. Where they have many positions to fill but no one willing to fill them. 

 

That could happen in theory, but i'm not sure it will in reality. Plenty of business sectors have a rep for awful working conditions but still get hires pretty readily.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

lmao, so you think they are doing it for the lulz? They ARE doing it for those reasons.

Every time I call a large company I get this statement about how the call “may be recorder for training purposes” I don’t know how many of them actually are.  There’s a good chance they all are and while they are “recorded for training purposes” those recording could be used for other things as well so stated intention is meaningless.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

That could happen in theory, but i'm not sure it will in reality. Plenty of business sectors have a rep for awful working conditions but still get hires pretty readily.

True.  Unionization in the US didn’t happen till employers were commonly effectively killing employees for money AND there was a strong unionization system.  

[poochyena]

14 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

And how does a camera watching the drivers face do anything about any of that.

If the truck is wrecked, they can see if the driver was texting or not, for example.

[Master Delta Chief]

3 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. See I don't even think it's wrong in all situations. Let's take a major trucking company, like Averitt Express. Their sole job is trucking, trucking, trucking. They do nothing but drive all day every day. And with a semi truck being particularly large and therefore more dangerous, a camera watching for a yawn is entirely reasonable. So why could it be an issue for Amazon? Because that's not all they do. They are a tech company, highly invested in DATA. So I don't trust them to be collecting all this new data and just assume they will only use it for safety.

2. Exactly

Data gathering is a bad thing, yes, but it shouldn't be the main reason for argumenting against this. As I mentioned a few times now, employees will get an additional layer of pressure and stress when they're being watched. There are other potential solutions instead of this 'yawning detection system' (Like giving a clear audio/visual reminder to take breaks). Plus, even if drivers are getting tired on the road that easily, that means there's a much different issue going on. Adding camera's is a very simplified way of thinking that doesn't solve a thing and goes against the privacy of individuals and so forth. I don't want to hear this and that about company property, because I give zero shits about that. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Master Delta Chief
Correcting word usage

[Donut417]

22 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

That could happen in theory, but i'm not sure it will in reality. Plenty of business sectors have a rep for awful working conditions but still get hires pretty readily.

Retailers and food places are having a hell of a time getting help. Most of these places in my area defiantly pay better than the states minimum wage. Most fast food places will start kids out at $10 and experienced people out at $11+, I think in some cases you can make between $12-$15 at Walmart.  The days of plentiful cheap labor are gone. Every place I pass seems like they are hiring. 

 

Also there have been calls for unions to come in to companies like Amazon. Amazon might not be able to stop it either. They have already been fined by the NLRB for threatening workers who want a Union. Once Amazon gets a Union, how long before Walmart? Also back in the day we didnt have websites like Glassdoor, and yes people do check those type of sites before applying at a company. There are many companies I wouldn't work for because of there reviews on Glassdoor. 

[Jtalk4456]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

1. On a note for everyone:

- The camera system gives audible reminders when it detects things such as unsafe following, and red-light running (so automatic feedback, which I think is good)

- The camera can detect yawning, and even warn the driver to pull over for 15 minutes (this would benefit the driver).

- The camera can be used in the event of an accident (if the driver is not at fault it can help them, and in either case it could mean that Amazon has a reduced insurance cost)

- The camera is actually 4 parts, road, sides and driver...essentially a 360 camera

2. It is equipped on Amazon branded vehicles

https://www.cnet.com/news/senators-question-amazon-on-use-of-cameras-to-monitor-delivery-drivers/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 - Actually, if you are being paid by Amazon (and do something else on their time) it would be considered their IP (or at least they have partial ownership).  Sure, they might not have the right to sell it since it's not in the contract, but you don't have the right to claim it as your own entirely as well (i.e. If you were to sell it, Amazon could also pursue you). The fact is, if you are contracted for a job between a set range of hours and you do other things they can try claiming IP as you are doing so on Amazon's dime.

4 - Do more research into it.  It is Amazon's property.  They are deploying it in Amazon branded vehicles, the drivers are contracted, but it's still Amazon branded vehicles (and thus Amazon has more control over them)

5 - Just because it can be used against you doesn't invalidate the point that it can also protect you.  If you get fired/reprimanded for not delivering all your packages in the allotted time, you could request the GPS and camera footage to show that you in fact were unable to do so.  If you want to take a bathroom break; and you get in trouble for it because you haven't delivered enough packages...you now have video proof showing that you didn't spend an unreasonable time finding/using a bathroom (which would mean they can't punish you and if they do you could sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

6 - Again, you could use the video against them.  Bathroom breaks have been held up in court (within reason)

7 - His attitude wasn't rude.

8 - They have a video of the side (likely there is still quite the obstruction, but there are a decent amount of videos out there showing the Amazon driver doing the deed at the front of the vehicle...which this would definitely catch).  Point is, find a bathroom, if they go after you just sue them for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

9 - You are making assumptions again.  Again do some research on this subject before you start making drastic claims. (fyi it doesn't capture sound).

10 - In the comment about the accident, by the time an accident happened it's already too late.  Having a wrong driver behind the wheel can invalidate the insurance and thus could mean a whole lot of money if an accident occurs (cost of the vehicle, cost of the packages, cost of any injuries to the opposing party)...sure Amazon could go after the driver for the lost money, but it would be likely they wouldn't be able to afford it.

11 - Again, I just want to point out there hasn't been any evidence you have shown that says it is going in unbranded personal vehicles.  The indication is that it's in the branded Amazon vehicles (which do have contract drivers)

1. That all sounds good if that's the ONLY thing it's used for and it's in Amazon Owned Vehicles, not personal. 

2. The article you posted is not the same news event that I posted. From the article I quoted:

Quote

The monitoring appears to apply to drivers who don't work directly for Amazon, but instead for delivery hubs that contract with Amazon. 

As I've said before most of these contracted drivers use personal vehicles, at least in my area. Even if they use their company's vans, they are not amazon owned, they are delivery hub owned. 

3. If that's the way IP works then we're all screwed. That's silly to expect every single thought and action in an 8 hr or longer time frame to be 100% business related. If I come up with an idea and jot it down on a napkin, there's no reason my job should be able to claim it as their idea.

4. Again your article is about something different than mine.

5. It does for me when the company has a financial incentive to use the data improperly and is well known for high turnover and terrible job conditions.

6. see above

7. Agree to disagree

8. unless they don't say why they fired you so you don't have anything to stand against. 

9. sound was just an example, even without sound I still go by my point here

10. that would be a fair point, except that having a camera pointed while the wrong person is driving won't prevent the action any sooner than an external camera seeing the wrong person get in. 

11. see the quote from above saying these are contracted delivery hubs which do not always use Amazon vehicles. Very rarely in fact around here. 

9 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

The disadvantages will outweigh the benefits. These so called 'solutions' will only add more pressure and stress for drivers who are already likely overworked (especially now in this pandemic). The yawning detection system sounds kinda useless. If a driver is already starting to yawn, they would likely need more than just 15 minutes of a break. 

Yep, and in the article above about a different story it even talks about the pressure and safety issues.

Quote

"Although Amazon may intend for its use of Driveri cameras to improve safety on the road, this surveillance could, in practice, create significant pressure on drivers to speed up on their routes, which can lead to driver fatigue and decreased safety," the lawmakers wrote. 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I've been in a vehicle with someone who fell asleep and yelled at to wake up...so having a system that can detect that is important.  Given they also reported 48% drop in accidents, if those numbers are true, it does seem like a very compelling reason to keep a system like that.

IF that's all they do with the data and IF their numbers are up to snuff, I can see where you're coming from, but that's a lot of IF for a company known for data collection and terrible worker conditions. 

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

1. Not for ownership of it. You make it seem like there aren't millions of people already working with cameras watching them....without issue.

2. It's actually not irrelevant at all, and it's entirely what is being discussed. People act better when they're on camera. A better driver is a better driver. Period.

They've done studies, and if it's reduced incidents by even 1/4 of the amount they claimed, it's still a positive.

3. You state without reducing the drivers privacy. Which they're not entitled to. So it doesn't matter.

 

Having a camera in the vehicle doesn't interfere with the safety of the job. If you can't do the job safely while being on camera, you shouldn't be doing it. If you're doing things you shouldn't be and that's why you don't want the camera in the car, you shouldn't be doing it. There are tons of jobs where people are on camera without any issue whatsoever. Just because it isn't required, doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it. Can't handle it? Work elsewhere. Simple.

1. In their personal vehicles? doubt it

2. To extend to that, it should be alright for isps to set up security cameras in customer homes so they can ensure no one is pirating content or looking at child pornography or hacking. That would reduce the rates of those crimes a ton. But of course that's silly, because privacy is NEVER irrelevant.
3. not amazons vehicle so yes they should be entitled to

4. Refer to the quote above on added pressure to perform leading to unsafe driving. 

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

It's an entry level delivery driver position. There is no studying. Yes, it is that simple.

Just because you want to do a job, doesn't mean you're suited to it, and by no means are you entitled to it.

They have well over 500,000 employees. Even if you have 0.01% of people don't like working there, that's still 5,000 people complaining. Seems big on paper, in reality it's a tiny percentage of their workforce.

So because the percentage of people complaining is small it's fine? Also I highly doubt there's only 5000 employees complaining... As you said it's entry level driving, it SHOULDN'T be hard it shouldn't be stressful. The fact that it is isn't a reflection on workers compatibility with the job, but rather the ridiculous working conditions Amazon has created. 

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Depends which article you read.  At most I would say at the moment there isn't any evidence that they are doing it with contractors who aren't driving Amazon vehicles. 

refer to quote above about this being specifically for contracted hubs. the other article was for a completely separate thing a month ago

7 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

Does it make it right? If they stick to the law then yes.

Well then...yeah I think we have a fundamental difference in how we view right and wrong. Legal can absolutely be wrong in my opinion. not all laws are good. Slavery was once a law so I simply cannot assume that law = good.

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/employee-relations/Pages/Employment-at-Will-Isnt-a-Blank-Check-to-Terminate-Employees-You-Dont-Like.aspx

Just because Amazon might refuse to give a reason, you can press them on it, doesn't mean you cannot challenge it. It doesn't take a lot of deduction to figure out why you're being dismissed.

The whole At Will thing isn't a employer get out of jail free card many think it is, even though compared to our labor laws it's crap but regardless it's still not what people think it is.

In theory I totally agree with you, but in practice, this falls thru very easily. I once worked at Daimler, paid for union fees and when I was fired a month later without any reasoning given, I wasn't even allowed to speak with a union rep or dispute my case, I was shuffled out the door with no explanation and given no option to talk to anyone. Could I have pursued it legally, sure. But people working entry level jobs like this likely don't have the resources needed to spend time, effort and money to challenge their company in court. They just move on to the next job so they can pay the bills. Good companies have procedures in place where everything is super well documented and you know exactly where you stand and why. But in many entry level jobs, this doesn't exist. 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Basically every minimum wage worker that uses a money till, those almost always have a camera (multiple) pointing at them and around them. Not that this is the only use case for cameras watching workers or being in work environment. I can't walk in to my office building without going in to view of multiple cameras and if I go in the to the actual datacenter I'm covered by multiple angles and are used for my safety monitoring not just security, something could happen to me and someone would see it.

again though in your personal vehicle is a different story. Privacy HAS to exist somewhere along the line. otherwise we end up with the slippery slope I described above

[Jtalk4456]

1 hour ago, kelvinhall05 said:

Irrelevant whether it's a personal vehicle or not. It is effectively their workplace; their entire job is based around that vehicle. It makes complete sense that Amazon would want to monitor them while they're on work hours.

And your second point isn't very good either because driving to work =/= driving being 90% of your entire job.

oh it makes plenty of sense that Amazon WANTS to monitor, but that doesn't make it right. 
Also this is assuming these cameras aren't turned on outside of work hours. given they are activated by incidents, I'd wager they are always on essentially. So my second point is about outside of work hours monitoring.

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Depends on how that Union vote goes. A Union could completely break Amazon's current business model.

Amazon Union, good joke XD but really I hope it happens. I just hope that union group is better than the UAW union. Didn't do crap when I got fired without reason and is under fire for a lot of corruption right now

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

good joke XD

Not a joke when they are voting on it in Alabama. The National Labor Relations Board is involved. With Federal Involvement in the Union vote, making sure the voting is done right, there is a real possibility a Union will get in there. And Amazon cant do a god damned thing about it because the Government is involved and the Right To collectively bargain is protected under Federal Law. 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

oh it makes plenty of sense that Amazon WANTS to monitor, but that doesn't make it right. 
Also this is assuming these cameras aren't turned on outside of work hours. given they are activated by incidents, I'd wager they are always on essentially. So my second point is about outside of work hours monitoring.

 

Amazon Union, good joke XD but really I hope it happens. I just hope that union group is better than the UAW union. Didn't do crap when I got fired without reason and is under fire for a lot of corruption right now

...so they want to make people put them in their own vehicles too or be fired?!  That’s even worse than in Amazon owned vehicles which already had issues.  This is getting worse and worse.  It sounds like really expensive hardware.  Who pays for it and what are the issues if a car is stolen or damaged?  There’s more than one can of rather nasty worms here.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Taf the Ghost]

@Jtalk4456In response to your response to me, yeah, I wouldn't trust Amazon either. However, the reason they'd care about this type of stuff is going to be some combination of efficiency, liability and information gathering. Weed & Alcohol usage on the job is going to be a big one for them, and it's a big problem in shipping.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. That all sounds good if that's the ONLY thing it's used for and it's in Amazon Owned Vehicles, not personal. 

2. The article you posted is not the same news event that I posted. From the article I quoted:

Well I apparently copied the wrong article (it still had a few of the points) [ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/amazon-using-ai-equipped-cameras-in-delivery-vans.html ]

 

I still stand by what I said, you should at least look more into your claims (e.g. the claims on the camera's only pointing at the driver, as that is factually false).

 

As for the second point...that shows absolutely nothing.  "Delivery Hubs" can mean a whole swath of things, and based on the CNBC article, it still could be Amazon owned vehicles.

 

Again with your point 5, you fail to see the argument that it can have good.  It's like complaining about x-rays causing cancer, and using that argument when someone mentions positives about x-rays.  Like it or not, having a video can work both ways (like I've said, you could take them to court and have actual evidence against some workplace practices)

 

The fact is, working at a company your expectation of privacy is greatly diminished while performing a job.

 

For part 3 - If you work for a company and create something on their time, they are benefits rights to it.  Not saying they have 100% ownership, but saying they do have rights to use it (without your permission).  For all intensive purposes, your thoughts while being paid, are not strictly yours.  Sure you could go out and create a crazy invention that has nothing to do with your direct line of work...but if you were using company time and created that invention, they would be entitled to at least have a license for it.

 

 

[SansVarnic]

Just to start I use "you" many times throughout this reply, please note I don't mean it as you directly but simply you in the general sense, openly.

Also, I have no intention to defend Amazon in this reply or my other replies. I am simply addressing the augment itself. I have no love for Amazon and its Executives. My replies stem from my own experiences as an Executive Officer (Chief Operations Officer) on how I see the issue and how Amazon is handling it. Size of company matters not; policies are the same/similar regardless of size.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. Not amazon's time, and not their intellectual property. Don't know where you got that from, but if they tape me singing to music in the car, they don't have rights to sell my first album, they have no ip on what a driver does, that doesn't even make sense. 

2. Not Amazon's property. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, but this is not in amazon trucks that we're talking about. This is in contract companies, a lot of which use PERSONAL VEHICLES. Therefore they absolutely should have a right to privacy in their own car.

3. Unless Amazon uses the footage to fire you because you don't want to be recorded in your own vehicle, in which case it's not protecting you.

4. Not at all, just saying the camera is unnecessary to enforce that.

5. I'll say again, Amazon has a LONG history of controversy with not allowing proper time for breaks. This is not about fred not having time management skills, this is about fred having to deliver hundreds of packages in a shift and not being afforded the time to get off the road and stop at a clean and legal bathroom facility

6. I find your attitude a bit rude here, especially coming from a moderator, and especially given you're mid-addressing it, and with points that are out of topic since again it's not Amazon's vehicle. If you wanna disagree, fine, but lets not go down the path of demeaning and insulting someone for posting a news story just cuz you don't think it's important. 

7. See all the points above.
Overall I want to clarify as it seems few are reading the article in question here.
This is NOT an Amazon vehicle, this is NOT their property or their IP somehow. This is a contracted delivery company being told that their drivers will be monitored by Amazon or they will be fired. Many of these fleets are people using PERSONAL vehicles, like the ones that deliver to my house constantly.

The "peeing thing" as you call it, is a MINOR detail that made for a catchy title. It is NOT the point of the article, I'm NOT worried someone will get filmed with their pants down. That wasn't the point. The point is Amazon's controlling behavior over things that don't belong to them and it's impact on privacy.
The biggest point was that their argument of safety and accountability can all be done with a ROAD-FACING dash cam, gps tracking and accelerometer (likely in the gps). Since it can be done without the camera, the camera is unnecessary and is just a way of Amazon legally collecting more and more data.

This is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. I'm not arguing otherwise. BUT data privacy is a growing concern around the world and I sincerely hope that we can all see how a camera collecting biometric data while you drive YOUR OWN VEHICLE could be considered a bit of an issue. Is it legal, sure, but that doesn't make it right. And when we just accept it's legal so it's ok, that opens the door for many slippery slope arguments allowing tech and other companies to do whatever they want. 

I can sum this up in short.

They pay you for your time... that time is called intellectual property. When you are off the clock, yes, it's your time again and sure you're entitled to that privacy (turn off the camera). They pay you to use your vehicle, so again, its theirs during that time under that same contract. An investment is an investment, their dime their time, their property.

This is a remarkably simple concept.

I ran a company for 10 years as its COO, I happen to know what I am talking about.

What you deem unnecessary is not a strong argument (as an Employee) for employee accountability, and as I pointed out in my original comment:

Quote

Those cameras also protect you. Try the other shoe, supervisor claims your slouching.... umm camera proves otherwise. Didn't open the world of thought on this article to much....  and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I will also add to this quote that the camera adds additional security to the interior against robbery of packages.

 

You have no idea the full reasoning behind the Executives reasoning for this move. I am sure there is at least a Minimum of 5 separate issues that have influenced their decision on this. I know you don't as your argument is written in a manner that screams this pov and I have experienced that pov many times when employees have asked for transparency when I made certain decisions. Those reasonings will never see the light day for legal reasons. 

 

My suggestion, let it go. Find another job. This is a Non-Issue.

 

But just to be clear on my side I will make a point to point for you.

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. Not amazon's time, and not their intellectual property. Don't know where you got that from, but if they tape me singing to music in the car, they don't have rights to sell my first album, they have no ip on what a driver does, that doesn't even make sense. 

2. Not Amazon's property. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, but this is not in amazon trucks that we're talking about. This is in contract companies, a lot of which use PERSONAL VEHICLES. Therefore they absolutely should have a right to privacy in their own car.

Already addressed above. 

But to be clear I did not overlook the personal vehicle in my comment. I just was not specific to it.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

3. Unless Amazon uses the footage to fire you because you don't want to be recorded in your own vehicle, in which case it's not protecting you.

They cannot do this in the US. Thats called Wrongful Termination and can be fought with the Dept Of Labor or <Your State> Work Force Development. And pray tell what footage would be used in this situation? None because that footage would have to show wrongdoing or breach of lawful policy.

Not sure where you are going with this point.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

4. Not at all, just saying the camera is unnecessary to enforce that.

Unnecessary how? it proves accountability on your part. GPS alone [unfortunately] can be spoofed.

For example, my client(s) wanted photo proof my employees were showing up on site for their duties, the employees argue this same point, invasion of privacy. Umm no its not its proof you're on site at the client's request. And Yes, we had GPS tracking as well but that was not enough to get the contract from the client... No contract, No work.

That photo is intellectual property of the company.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

5. I'll say again, Amazon has a LONG history of controversy with not allowing proper time for breaks. This is not about fred not having time management skills, this is about fred having to deliver hundreds of packages in a shift and not being afforded the time to get off the road and stop at a clean and legal bathroom facility

True. But this has been documented in the warehouses. Under poor Supervisors that been both held accountable and fired. A much different scenario. Are drivers being physically stopped from routing to a gas station to pee? are supervisors physically stopping them? No. I am not buying this. This is extremely easy to resolve.

I'm sorry but this doesn't hold much water, the driver can both document and call to phone document they are taking a 5min to pee. Really not a hard thought process. If Supervisor wants to complain then file a HR complaint against the Supervisor or a DOL complaint.

If the driver is taking pee breaks more often than is reasonable then yes, the driver is at fault.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

6. I find your attitude a bit rude here, especially coming from a moderator, and especially given you're mid-addressing it, and with points that are out of topic since again it's not Amazon's vehicle. If you wanna disagree, fine, but lets not go down the path of demeaning and insulting someone for posting a news story just cuz you don't think it's important.

Rude? no. Direct? Yes.

This has nothing to do with me being a moderator. I am replying as another member, as a former COO of a respected company.

Nothing I said is out of topic. It's all relevant, straight on and to the point.

I do disagree with your viewpoint because A) its emotionally driven and B) it is partially ill-informed based on the level of experience I see in your comments. 

Do I believe it is unimportant? I did not say that. Amazon believes it is important and relevant or they would not have done it. What I believe is not relevant to Amazon.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

7. See all the points above.
Overall I want to clarify as it seems few are reading the article in question here.

I read the entirety before replying. But lets continue.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

This is NOT an Amazon vehicle, this is NOT their property or their IP somehow. This is a contracted delivery company being told that their drivers will be monitored by Amazon or they will be fired. Many of these fleets are people using PERSONAL vehicles, like the ones that deliver to my house constantly.

I understand they are using personal vehicles and my point still stands that I made above. Their dime, their time, their property. For a multitude of reasons and just to keep that short, liability. Ans that really covers the majority of it. If you don't like the contract, then don't sign it and move on.

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

The "peeing thing" as you call it, is a MINOR detail that made for a catchy title. It is NOT the point of the article, I'm NOT worried someone will get filmed with their pants down. That wasn't the point. The point is Amazon's controlling behavior over things that don't belong to them and it's impact on privacy.

I got the point of the article; it was clear. You are in a way dismissing me and what I said by saying this. I added what I did to emphasize how ridiculous this issue is.

There is no breach of privacy here.

When a driver is off the clock. Turn of the camera. No court will argue against this. Amazon can't stop them. 

You are making many assumptions of what can and can't be done but let's continue.

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

The biggest point was that their argument of safety and accountability can all be done with a ROAD-FACING dash cam, gps tracking and accelerometer (likely in the gps).

Correct.

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Since it can be done without the camera, the camera is unnecessary and is just a way of Amazon legally collecting more and more data.

This is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. I'm not arguing otherwise. BUT data privacy is a growing concern around the world and I sincerely hope that we can all see how a camera collecting biometric data while you drive YOUR OWN VEHICLE could be considered a bit of an issue. Is it legal, sure, but that doesn't make it right. And when we just accept it's legal so it's ok, that opens the door for many slippery slope arguments allowing tech and other companies to do whatever they want. 

Of course, it can be done without a camera but as I mentioned above there are reasons you, the Amazon Employees and the public will never know [the core reasons] as to why the decision was made. This move was not made to collect data, this is such an extremely gross waste of an argument. Think of the waste of funding just to collect data? really? seriously? it's a faulty argument in on itself.

Describe to me how they are collecting Biometric data. There is more to biometrics than just facial shots. If they wanted that they could get it from your FB account.

Where are they storing it? How will they use it? Please. Let's take this all in a logical manner.

 

What about this is right or wrong? From my standpoint it's about Liability, in that context its Ethical to hold accountability and full proof for Liability. There is no right or wrong here, its logistics and accountability. Simple.

 

16 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

that opens the door for many slippery slope arguments allowing tech and other companies to do whatever they want. 

No, no it doesn't. Not even... no.

Installing an in cab camera can be turned off, unplugged.... whatever during the off hours. Don't tell me they can't, I'll prove to you otherwise.

When you're on the clock the camera is on, when you're off the clock it is no longer their time.

Limitations are spelled out in the contract. Such a contract cannot openly breach current privacy laws on the books and if there are clauses that do those clauses can be challenged and taken to court. If it is in the contract the camera power is not employee accessible, please by alllll means post it. And then there you will have your silver bullet.

 

Your argument appears emotionally driven, and it is evident [to me] you are affected by this in many ways and because of that you are not thinking this through thoroughly.

Edited March 26, 2021 by SansVarnic
Some small edits.

[CarlBar]

52 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Installing an in cab camera can be turned off, unplugged.... whatever during the off hours. Don't tell me they can't, I'll prove to you otherwise.

 

Depends on the hardware and what rules amazon goes with,. if they put some do not tamper rule in place your relying on whatever agreement they make to not use it outside of work hours to be honoured. And we've had so many smart device recording scandals i wouldn't trust any company to abide by that.

 

That said i'm totally not OK with them forcing private vehicle owners to have this installed when working for amazon

 

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

If the truck is wrecked, they can see if the driver was texting or not, for example.

 

If the truck was wreaked ad it was due to careless driving due to texting the careless driving will be visible on the external camera's.

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, CarlBar said:

Depends on the hardware and what rules amazon goes with,. if they put some do not tamper rule in place your relying on whatever agreement they make to not use it outside of work hours to be honoured. And we've had so many smart device recording scandals i wouldn't trust any company to abide by that.

 

That said i'm totally not OK with them forcing private vehicle owners to have this installed when working for amazon

Yes, it depends. Like I said:

59 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

If it is in the contract the camera power is not employee accessible, please by alllll means post it. And then there you will have your silver bullet.

I am not wholly in favor of it myself. If it can be turned off, then I'm ok with it. If it can't then I am not.

I would be the one that installs a master power cutoff. That or I'll be pulling the fuse during my off time. They can't prove I'm doing it anyhow.

There is a certain degree of invasive installation (without destruction to private property) anyhow so setting up a power switch won't be hard.

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I apparently copied the wrong article (it still had a few of the points) [ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/amazon-using-ai-equipped-cameras-in-delivery-vans.html ]

 

I still stand by what I said, you should at least look more into your claims (e.g. the claims on the camera's only pointing at the driver, as that is factually false).

 

As for the second point...that shows absolutely nothing.  "Delivery Hubs" can mean a whole swath of things, and based on the CNBC article, it still could be Amazon owned vehicles.

 

Again with your point 5, you fail to see the argument that it can have good.  It's like complaining about x-rays causing cancer, and using that argument when someone mentions positives about x-rays.  Like it or not, having a video can work both ways (like I've said, you could take them to court and have actual evidence against some workplace practices)

 

The fact is, working at a company your expectation of privacy is greatly diminished while performing a job.

 

For part 3 - If you work for a company and create something on their time, they are benefits rights to it.  Not saying they have 100% ownership, but saying they do have rights to use it (without your permission).  For all intensive purposes, your thoughts while being paid, are not strictly yours.  Sure you could go out and create a crazy invention that has nothing to do with your direct line of work...but if you were using company time and created that invention, they would be entitled to at least have a license for it.

 

 

Side note about the x-ray thing:

some countries no longer use x-ray machines at all.  Everything is mri.  Apparently mri machines cost vastly less in countries other than the US. Has to do with the way medical patents work I understand.  Ultrasound is the same way there are ultrasound machines that cost 30k in the US while there are ultrasound sleds for smartphones that go for $100 that can be used in other countries.  The 30k ones are more accurate and can do things like 3d and “movie” ultrasounds which the others can’t, but those features aren’t needed for most things.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Bombastinator

[JZStudios]

It's almost like all of these issues can be fixed by a standard issue dash cam and GPS, rather than being as invasive as possible.

[Bombastinator]

34 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

It's almost like all of these issues can be fixed by a standard issue dash cam and GPS, rather than being as invasive as possible.

I don’t know about ALL exactly but at least most.  This whole thing seems unnecessary for the reasons described.  Also a lot more expensive, which implies it’s either financially stupid behavior on the part of the company, or there’s something else they aren’t mentioning.