To: President Donald Trump

Inward Facing Cameras & The Commercial Driver.

Stop the Installation of Inward Facing Cameras.

"When A company hires a driver expecting the driver to be capable of carrying out their duties in a safe manner, yet feel they need to monitor the driver because they do not trust them, then why did they hire them to begin with?"

Why is this important?

The installation of the ‘Inward Facing Cameras’ by employers of trucking firms in the United States, In our professional opinion, is a violation of the "Bill of Rights" and our right to privacy laws. It is an intrusion of personal freedoms and liberties.

Here is why:

We all recognize that the home is a special place. It even has been said, "A man's home is his castle." As such, are activities that take place in the home deserving of special protection under the Constitution?

Within the Constitution, it does not mention the word “house”.

The word "house" appears twice in the text of the Bill of Rights, indicating the concern of Madison and other drafters for the protection of privacy in the home.

(A home is defined as a place you live, (truck sleeper birth).

I think the sweep of the court's decisions under both the fourth and fourteenth amendments, amply shows that the constitution protects the privacy of the home (truck sleeper berth) against all unreasonable intrusion of whatever character. These principles affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security.

Privacy laws apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees by police or employer of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.

"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police or employers -- is at the core of the fourth amendment -- is basic to a free society."

The fourth amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home ‘is’ his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government.

It protects against arbitrary arrests and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, (Audio/Visual) and other forms of ‘SURVEILLANCE’.

Intrusive Surveillance:

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), which came into force on the same day in 2000 as the (Human Rights Act), provides a legal basis for various covert investigatory techniques. It is no coincidence that the two statutes came into force on the same day.

Investigatory techniques used by the police or employers are that any interference with a person's privacy must be "in accordance with the law".

Intrusive surveillance is defined in section 27 as "covert surveillance that is carried out in relation to anything taking place on any residential premises or in any private vehicle and involves the presence of an individual on the premises or in the vehicle or is carried out by means of a surveillance device."

Inward facing cameras most certainly should be deemed unreasonable under the law. Any and all invasion of privacy inside a home, or the threat of invasion of privacy without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.

United States Codes, Title 18, and Section 2510 (2) states:

“Oral communication means any ‘oral communication’ uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation”.

Employers:

Monitoring employee areas requires even stricter adherence to the two requirements. Employees should be clearly informed about which areas are monitored, and why.

Changing areas and bathrooms may never have cameras. (truck sleeper berth). Cameras may be used to protect a firm against employee theft.

Cameras may not be used to prohibit the legal activity, such as union or organizing, nor may they be used to harass employees. Recordings should never be used for any other purpose, such as making private videos, posting on the Internet, or making fun of employees.

Companies should have a written policy regarding videos. And keep a log of all video viewing and usage. Violation of Human Rights. (spying) could result in damages by the employee against the company.

Audio Recording:

Audio recording is almost never a permitted activity under the fourth amendment, without a warrant.

Recorded telephone conversations (trucker calling family, work, dispatchers, agents or friends in the truck) the rule must clearly inform all participants at the start of the call or provide a regular beep and even the threat of such a violation of privacy is flagrant at best.

Conclusion:

It is clear that employers may use video surveillance regarding the adherence to employee’s compliance with important safety rules. (Outward facing cameras) is permissible.

When protecting the company against unintended consequences, or other liabilities, unduly thrust upon the company, by no fault of their own.

As it is associated with “Inward Facing Cameras” Without the ‘employee’ signing a document thus giving permission to the employer that he/she can be monitored at any time?

Then at present. The use of the Inward-Facing Camera(s). Is in direct violation of the 4th, 5th (self-Incrimination) & 14th amendments.

Inward facing cameras installed in a truck are a violation of Human rights.

To obtain any and all audio and visual movement inside the truck, the driver must waive all of his or her constitutional rights to privacy which is absurd.

Unless the commercial driver signs a waiver surrendering all rights as a free citizen in a free society then the company should not be allowed to install it in the truck.

Recommendations:

Exercise your rights as a commercial driver. Understand your rights to privacy. If the company insists and threatens to terminate your employment because you will not work for them with it installed in your vehicle they will then be in violation of your “Human Rights."

To add, the thought of any person in America claiming that an individual does not want the 'IFC' for fear of being caught doing something illegal or otherwise detrimental to the trucking firm, the general public or themselves is almost as ludicrous as the Inward-facing camera policy itself.

Everyone should be trusted until such time it is no longer warranted.

If they thought they had a driver shortage before. Wait un...