Big Brother WILL Indeed Be Watching.

Going Forward

A sinister development:

If proof were needed that unelected individuals have too much time on their hands, they now propose to use GPS technology to locate commercial vehicles in the EU so as to detect infringements on working hours Directives:

This is surely a step too far.

And no doubt Ireland will roll over and get its tummy tickled for being a good little country who enthusiastically endorses the proposals.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/903&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


Couched in terms designed to appeal to the baser instincts, it is being promoted as a way for operators to save money.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

This is surely a step too far.

Why?

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Big Brother comes to mind.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

Big Brother comes to mind.

Big Brother knows how many km you drive, through your driver card. Big Brother knows where you buy diesel, through credit card/fuel card records. Big Brother, in the sense of officials knowing things about you, is here to stay.

Is there a compelling reason not to enforce tachograph rules through GPS?

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Big Brother knows how many km you drive, through your driver card. Big Brother knows where you buy diesel, through credit card/fuel card records. Big Brother, in the sense of officials knowing things about you, is here to stay.

Is there a compelling reason not to enforce tachograph rules through GPS?

Privacy issues and civil liberties. Who will have access to the information etc. etc.?

We have learnt of various instances of inappropriate queries being made on our own confidential national databases by those who have access to it.

There have also been well publicised cases of confidential data being stolen, on laptops etc.

The information to be garnered from the EC's proposal could also be commercially sensitive.

And I simply dont see the need for such constant scrutiny.

I havent seen any proposals to use the same technology being applied to migrants who already have criminal records, or to our own collection of miscreants out on bail with no one having a clue as to there whereabouts.

It, I suggest, will not be long before some other similar proposals dressed up as road safety, will suggest that ALL new cars have such technology.

Volvo for one is working on such systems. But it as an optional extra, for the timebeing at least.

Would you be happy with the same technology and propsals being applied to private cars where any infringement by the driver of speed limits could be recalled and prosecuted at a later date?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

Privacy issues and civil liberties. Who will have access to the information etc. etc.?

We have learnt of various instances of inappropriate queries being made on our own confidential national databases by those who have access to it.

There have also been well publicised cases of confidential data being stolen, on laptops etc.

The information to be garnered from the EC's proposal could also be commercially sensitive.

And I simply dont see the need for such constant scrutiny.

All of the above are reasons to prevent the collection and storage of any private or commercially-sensitive information, including what's already being collected and stored. I'm not seeing a compelling argument against the collection and storage of more information.

I havent seen any proposals to use the same technology being applied to migrants who already have criminal records, or to our own collection of miscreants out on bail with no one having a clue as to there whereabouts.

Would you oppose such proposals?

It, I suggest, will not be long before some other similar proposals dressed up as road safety, will suggest that ALL new cars have such technology.

Volvo for one is working on such systems. But it as an optional extra, for the timebeing at least.

Would you be happy with the same technology and propsals being applied to private cars where any infringement by the driver of speed limits could be recalled and prosecuted at a later date?

I haven't seen any mention of speed limits in the press release you linked to. It does talk about reducing fraud and costs. Is there a particular reason you would rather not see fraud and/or costs reduced?

the_syco

Going Forward wrote: »

they now propose to use GPS technology to locate commercial vehicles in the EU so as to detect infringements on working hours Directives

About f'ing time, more like it. The industry won't be able to regulate all of it's members, so the EU is doing it for them.

Not sure about here, but there have been a few documentaries about foreign drivers working in england doing some horrific shifts. Hopefully this will put a stop to it.

I'm generally anti anything invading privacy but I can't really see the problem here after reading that document and a bit of reading up on it, to be honest...

Going Forward

One of my main concerns apart from the Big Brother element is that the minute you get into a truck nowadays you obviously automatically become a "suspect".

Suspected of breaking all sorts of rules and infringing all sorts of regulations.

My point earlier was that actual convicted criminals, migrants included AFAIK are not even subject to these new proposals.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of the above are reasons to prevent the collection and storage of any private or commercially-sensitive information, including what's already being collected and stored. I'm not seeing a compelling argument against the collection and storage of more information. Would you oppose such proposals? I haven't seen any mention of speed limits in the press release you linked to. It does talk about reducing fraud and costs. Is there a particular reason you would rather not see fraud and/or costs reduced?

I would welcome propsals to monitor the whereabouts of convicted criminals.

Digital Tachographs store over speed infringements. Do you expect officialdom to ignore any evidence it finds that shows infractions?

Would you welcome the same proposals for all private vehicles?

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I would welcome propsals to monitor the whereabouts of convicted criminals.

Digital Tachographs store over speed infringements. Do you expect officialdom to ignore any evidence it finds that shows infractions?

Would you welcome the same proposals for all private vehicles?

I wouldn't welcome implementation of workplace health and safety legislation in my home, but that's not an argument against it being applied in workplaces.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't welcome implementation of workplace health and safety legislation in my home, but that's not an argument against it being applied in workplaces.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I didnt mention anything about anyones home.

Should the same proposals also not be applied to the private motorist, for the greater good?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

I didnt mention anything about anyones home.

You don't get the concept of analogy, do you?

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I didnt mention anything about anyones home.

Should the same proposals also not be applied to the private motorist, for the greater good?

Are you proposing that they should be?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

It should be pointed out this is a proposal.

It is up to democratically elected MEPs and government ministers as to whether this proposal becomes law and, if it does, what form such an initial proposal ultimately takes when it does become law.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

It should be pointed out this is a proposal.

It is up to democratically elected MEPs and government ministers as to whether this proposal becomes law and, if it does, what form such an initial proposal ultimately takes when it does become law.

To be fair, though, the best time to object to a law is when it's still a proposal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, though, the best time to object to a law is when it's still a proposal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It is indeed but, as of now, we have no idea what position the EP's parties, much less, the ministers from the individual member states will adopt wrt the proposal. As such, the OP's derogatory comments that "Ireland will roll over..." are unwarranted although, perhaps, the OP just objects to our democratically elected ministers adopting laws unless they agree with his personal opinions.

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you proposing that they should be?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No.
There seems to be enthusiasm for the proposals from the gist of the replies.
Just wondering whether anyone would like to bite the bullet and say whether the propsals should be applied to private vehicles.

Whats your opinion?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

Just wondering whether anyone would like to bite the bullet and say whether the propsals should be applied to private vehicles.

Scofflaw responded to that with a pretty clear analogy, which you either didn't understand or pretended not to. You could always try reading it again, and trying to figure out what it meant.

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

No.
There seems to be enthusiasm for the proposals from the gist of the replies.
Just wondering whether anyone would like to bite the bullet and say whether the propsals should be applied to private vehicles.

Whats your opinion?

My opinion is that you're trying to get people to object to something they're not likely to object to (that hasn't even happened) by moving the argument on to something you think they're likely to object to - and by implying that to be in favour of one is to be in favour of the other.

There are arguments against applying any such observation to private vehicles that don't apply to commercial vehicles. And there are arguments for applying such observation to commercial vehicles that don't apply to private vehicles.

So my opinion is that that's a red herring you're showing me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

My opinion is that you're trying to get people to object to something they're not likely to object to (that hasn't even happened) by moving the argument on to something you think they're likely to object to - and by implying that to be in favour of one is to be in favour of the other.

There are arguments against applying any such observation to private vehicles that don't apply to commercial vehicles. And there are arguments for applying such observation to commercial vehicles that don't apply to private vehicles.

So my opinion is that that's a red herring you're showing me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I imagine that there would be great reluctance if the proposals (GPS) were mooted for private motorists.

I think at some stage the issues covered in for example, the working time (driving hours) rules for proffesional drivers will have to be debated as to whether there would be a social benefit if they were to be applied to private motorists, particularly as private motorists top the league of fatal accident statistics.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

I imagine that there would be great reluctance if the proposals (GPS) were mooted for private motorists.

I think there would be great reluctance if workplace health and safety laws were mooted for private homes.

(That's that analogy thing again.)

I think at some stage the issues covered in for example, the working time (driving hours) rules for proffesional drivers will have to be debated as to whether there would be a social benefit if they were to be applied to private motorists, particularly as private motorists top the league of fatal accident statistics.

Why would working time rules apply to people who are not working? Should the WTA apply to time I spend fishing?

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think there would be great reluctance if workplace health and safety laws were mooted for private homes.

(That's that analogy thing again.) Why would working time rules apply to people who are not working? Should the WTA apply to time I spend fishing?

You may be at risk of falling in to the water if you fish non-stop for 23 hours.

Its just an analogy.

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I imagine that there would be great reluctance if the proposals (GPS) were mooted for private motorists.

I think at some stage the issues covered in for example, the working time (driving hours) rules for proffesional drivers will have to be debated as to whether there would be a social benefit if they were to be applied to private motorists, particularly as private motorists top the league of fatal accident statistics.

Sure - but the details, and the balance of interests, will be almost entirely different, while the likelihood of such a proposal being seriously mooted will be very much lower. An entire sea-change in the public attitude to motoring would be necessary before anything like it made it out of the starting blocks.

So it's not really relevant to this debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

You may be at risk of falling in to the water if you fish non-stop for 23 hours.

Its just an analogy.

I think oscarBravo may be right, and you don't really get what makes an analogy relevant, or indeed the fundamentals of H&S regulation. You're at liberty to put yourself in danger as a private individual - regulations exist to prevent your employer putting you in danger as an employee. The regulations exist because your employer is in a position of power in relation to you, and operate to limit the exercise of that power over you. Similar regulations exist wherever there is a disparity in power - parents not at liberty to endanger their children, for example. Attempting to apply such logic to the individual is farcical.

Laws and regulations aren't just created out of a spirit of busybodiness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the_syco

Going Forward wrote: »

You may be at risk of falling in to the water if you fish non-stop for 23 hours.

Its just an analogy.

If I fish for 23 hours non-stop, and I fall asleep, I may kill a fish.

But if you're driving for 23 hours non-stop and go for a snooze, you can kill people.

=-=

And as there are no regulations at the current moment that are enforceable by law it would seem, some unsavoury companies, as pointed out on both Irish and English documentaries give their drivers unrealistic deadlines. We have seen that if the Irish government does something that the truckers don't like, they strike.

Well, f**k you mr trucker (actually, I wonder is the OP a trucker?), the EU is bringing in the law. The big bad EU is telling you to put GPS trackers into your truck.

Not like it? Tough titteh. Go on strike, and see if the EU gives a damn.

Going Forward

the_syco wrote: »

But if you're driving for 23 hours non-stop and go for a snooze, you can kill people.

So could you. Thats my point.

the_syco wrote: »

Well, f**k you mr trucker (actually, I wonder is the OP a trucker?), the EU is bringing in the law. The big bad EU is telling you to put GPS trackers into your truck.

Not like it? Tough titteh. Go on strike, and see if the EU gives a damn.

Nice. Why not try Mother Trucker. Rolls off the tongue easier.

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - but the details, and the balance of interests, will be almost entirely different, while the likelihood of such a proposal being seriously mooted will be very much lower. An entire sea-change in the public attitude to motoring would be necessary before anything like it made it out of the starting blocks.

So it's not really relevant to this debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its actually very relevant.

The details would be easily changed, and the focus would be on road safety as opposed to detecting fraudulent activities, unlicensed drivers driving uninsured vehicles committing road traffic offences.

And sea changes of public attitudes can and do occur.
Consider the sea change in attitudes towards drink driving for one.
Thirty years ago drink driving was seen as the norm and socially acceptable in Ireland.
Another example is the current attitude to the Catholic Church.

So it may be unwise to assume that the proposals initially outlined here would not not only be mooted for private motorists but actually welcomed in some quarters.

It is in this context that those who embrace the proposals here as being suitable for others should consider whether they would welcome the proposals for themselves.

As I outlined at the outset, the GPS aspects of the proposals are what I find questionable, not the general tachograph concepts.

Scofflaw

It is in this context that those who embrace the proposals here as being suitable for others should consider whether they would welcome the proposals for themselves.

In any context that's a red herring, because unless the proposals are put forward for private vehicles, the question of whether you would want them applied to private vehicles is completely irrelevant.

As I said, I wouldn't want H&S legislation applied to my kitchen, but I'm entirely in favour of it being applied in restaurants.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

In any context that's a red herring, because unless the proposals are put forward for private vehicles, the question of whether you would want them applied to private vehicles is completely irrelevant.

I didnt realise something had to be written in stone before you would debate it!

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said, I wouldn't want H&S legislation applied to my kitchen, but I'm entirely in favour of it being applied in restaurants.

Now that is a clever analogy.;)

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I didnt realise something had to be written in stone before you would debate it!

Not at all - if you want to debate the possible application of tracking to private vehicles, no problem. I thought this thread was about tracking commercial vehicles, though.

Going Forward wrote: »

Now that is a clever analogy.;)

Glad you're aboard.

cordially,
Scofflaw