IBT on the cameras

Trucker Clock

Well-Known Member
This is your opinion. This is the reason we have lawyers and judges. They'll make the decision. One is a vehicle code and the other is penal code. Again agree to disagree.

Apparently, my opinion is the same as the opinion of the California Court of Appeals. While it is only an opinion, it is the Courts opinion. And they tackle the Penal Code vs. Vehicle Code relating to windshield cameras.

 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Apparently, my opinion is the same as the opinion of the California Court of Appeals. While it is only an opinion, it is the Courts opinion. And they tackle the Penal Code vs. Vehicle Code relating to windshield cameras.

Again... that's about video recording. I know that a company can video record for safety and legitimate business reasons like theft.

"On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in this action, asserting four causes of action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy (false light). She alleged that a SmartDrive camera was on and recording her the entire time she drove since she began work and that her truck had a sleeper berth, "so that the camera [was], in effect, constantly filming plaintiff's bedroom as she [was] driving." "

I see nothing in there about audio recording.

I also saw this..

"Acceptance of the surveillance system was made a condition of their employment; no explicit permission from the drivers was sought."

like I said before. If they put it in the contract then I'll have to vote NO and vote out OZ asap. I honestly don't know why we are still debating this. Until it happens everything we say is just matter of opinion.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Again... that's about video recording. I know that a company can video record for safety and legitimate business reasons like theft.

"On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in this action, asserting four causes of action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy (false light). She alleged that a SmartDrive camera was on and recording her the entire time she drove since she began work and that her truck had a sleeper berth, "so that the camera [was], in effect, constantly filming plaintiff's bedroom as she [was] driving." "

I see nothing in there about audio recording.

I also saw this..

"Acceptance of the surveillance system was made a condition of their employment; no explicit permission from the drivers was sought."

like I said before. If they put it in the contract then I'll have to vote NO and vote out OZ asap. I honestly don't know why we are still debating this. Until it happens everything we say is just matter of opinion.
I apologize I see now at the bottom that the law(though a different penal code) was introduced but was shot down because of no actual evidence of audio recordings

Young has also failed to set forth factual allegations that fulfill the required elements of the claim. She argues only that "audio data" is collected but does not claim she could allege the disclosure of any "telegraphic or telephonic" communications required under the statute.
 

Trucker Clock

Well-Known Member
I apologize I see now at the bottom that the law(though a different penal code) was introduced but was shot down because of no actual evidence of audio recordings

Young has also failed to set forth factual allegations that fulfill the required elements of the claim. She argues only that "audio data" is collected but does not claim she could allege the disclosure of any "telegraphic or telephonic" communications required under the statute.

Yep. The California Court of Appeals opined that her employer did not violate the Penal Code Statute for audio recording by recording audio in her truck without her consent.
 

35years

Gravy route
Don't block the sensor...You can't mess with THEIR equipment.
But your own sunglasses, well you can protect your eyes from I.R. beams...
The benefit is that "events" will not be triggered, so no recording of body triggered "events".
If the camera cant find your retinas, it can't find your face and body.




 

Trucker Clock

Well-Known Member
A labor contract or an arbitration decision doesn't overrule law

Correct. But, in this case, what law are you referring to?

@542thruNthru realized that it is not necessarily illegal in California to record 8 seconds of audio before and after an "event."

In the 45 states that are only a 1 party State, it is perfectly legal. In the other 2 party States, it is not cut and dry that they cannot record without your consent. It seems to depend on what is being recorded. In California, 16 seconds of recording in-cab audio does not necessarily fall under recording telecommunications as specified in the penal statute.

This is actually concerning.
 
Last edited:
Top