New York Taxi Drivers To Strike Over GPS 293
Stony Stevenson notes a NYTimes story on labor unrest caused by high-tech privacy concerns. One organization of taxi drivers plans a 48-hour strike, while another opposes any such action. "One taxi group plans to strike from 5 a.m. Sept. 5, through 5 a.m. Sept. 7, in opposition to New York City's requirement that all cabs be equipped with GPS technology beginning Oct. 1... saying GPS infringes on drivers' privacy... The Taxi and Limousine Commission passed a rule stating that all New York City cabs must have touch-screen display panels, credit card readers, and GPS beginning this year. Many taxis already are equipped with the technologies, which allow passengers to get news, route data, and other information. The TLC claims that the technology will not be used to invade drivers' privacy but will provide real-time maps and help passengers recover lost property."
What are they whining about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy threat? How is it any worse than having a camera in your office at a desk job?
I'm sorry but I support the devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Why I do support this
a) Improve productivity: The driver is on the job. As a capitalistic society we strive to improve productivity and, while sad, monitoring does do this.
b) All cabs take credit cards: Have you ever had a bad cab experience? How about having no cash and driver not accepting credit because it's past 6 PM (wtf is with that rule anyhow)
c) Bad Routes avoided: Looking at a map gives you some idea where you are and the driver would be less likely to take longer routes. Puts you, the consumer in control
d) Better privacy: Remember the stories of the handheld credit card readers being used by dishonest restaurant employees to steal your credit card? You don't hand your card to anyone, you pay at the device
e) Better oversight: If all the system use similar credit checking devices it's easier for regulatory groups to audit them -- versus having 30 different pos* devices
* Point of Sale
Privacy while at work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Honesty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Asset tracking != Privacy violation (Score:4, Insightful)
Do the cars belong to the drivers? No. They are the company's property.
Do the drivers drive them in their own free time? No. They are doing business work driving these cars and are paid for it.
Do companies have the right to keep track of how their assets are used? Absolutely.
For those who compare this to companies that put keyloggers on employee's computers - this is NOT the same. If companies were to install cameras inside cabs and watch the driver's behavior (something many bus companies actually do), or record the drivers voice, or even record driving manners by analyzing the car computer's data - you'd have a (somewhat) legitimate case of privacy invasion, since you'd monitor the driver himself.
The GPS however, only monitors the cab. In the worst case scenario (for privacy advocates) the data could be used to find drivers who just don't do their jobs, say those who say they are busy with a customer while the GPS indicates they are parked near a fast food restaurant. But companies do have the right to monitor the productivity of their workers to a certain degree.
This kind of monitoring would be equivalent to an IT company monitoring which workstations are turned on, how often does a particular person check in his source code, or even where is the current physical location of a business laptop given to an employee on a business trip and who has been told that the laptop is for official use only, and that he should use his personal laptop for any non work related activity or travel. This is fair business practice, not a privacy invasion. If the employee was stupid enough to take his WORK laptop to a nightclub, and/or even stupider to do it on his workshift, and then get tracked there, it's his own fault and he deserves to be fired - not for immoral behavior but for abuse of company resources and slacking off on the job. Had the employee taken his own personal laptop on his own free time, he would not have been monitored or caught.
Same story with the cabs - they are not personal vehicles - they are given to drivers for business use only, on paid business shifts only, and companies have the right to make sure the equipment is used as intended.
Besides, there are lots of other legimiate uses for GPS in cabs - such as improved computer-assisted dispatcher coordination, by automatically finding which cab is closest to a taxi request, or by providing interactive driving maps to drivers.
I'm all for privacy, and I hate when companies track the behavior of employees which is not related to business use or done on their own free time (such as firing someone because he visits a swinger's club or whatever). But if you do that on your workshift and using company resources, then it's your own stupid fault and you have every right to be fired.
Re:What are they whining about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What are they whining about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't it be both? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it invading a cabbie's privacy to know where he is when he's at work? My boss knows where I am when I'm at work. I would hope that the city buses have GPSs that report speed and location to a Transit Authority dispatch. I would also hope that NYPD cruisers have (encoded) GPSs reporting to police dispatch. I imagine that the real problem with this is that GPS will also disclose things like speeding and off the record fares. Cabs work for the TLC and the passenger, and both deserve to know where their driver is going. When you are at work you (usually) are part of a hierarchical system and part of that involves your work superiors knowing where you are and what you are doing. This complaint takes real nerve when most cabs and car services in NYC have a system that automatically takes a passengers picture for the protection of the driver.
Not the whole story. (Score:5, Insightful)
In actuality, many of the cab drivers are upset because if they are forced to accept credit cards, they will have to pay thousands of dollars out of their own money to install the flat-screens in the backseat, raise the price of renting a taxi itself to drive, and allow the credit card companies to pocket about a dollar out of every fare. That will add up.
Re:What are they whining about? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's acceptable if that's the terms of employment. If you don't like those terms, you're free to find employment elsewhere.
I for one can't imagine taking a desk job with a camera watching me, but if employers want to do that, that's their choice. It's my choice to refuse to take any such jobs.
Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On The Job (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are not.
A real libertarian (or even a Libertarian) would say that this is an issue between the service provider and the customer and the free market should sort it out.
If people want a cab with GPS and butt warmers, they should choose a cab company that provides it. If all the customer cares about is the lowest price, they should be free to choose the "cash only" BO-mobile driven by a mad Punjabi. The state has no business interfering in this.
Re:Asset tracking != Privacy violation (Score:1, Insightful)
----
080709:1823:136.346:074.234:484199872:Client Pays VISA 5784294893957493
080709:1823:136.346:074.234:484199872:Client Selects No Trip Logging
080709:1826:136.346:074.259:484199872:Point
080709:1829:136.772:074.259:484199872:Point
080709:1833:136.772:073.984:484199872:Point
080709:1838:136.945:073.984:484199872:Point
080709:1843:136.945:073.984:484199872:Client Leaves Vehicle
----
Bill, "Well, log it into L4 suspicious. Wonder when they will figure out the 'No Log' button is just like a VCR power button. By the way Frank, why's your chair heart monitor signaling a 20% increase?"
Frank, "Oh, I always thought the off button shut it off."
Bill, "After working here for 4 years, you should know no computer is off unless you unplug it."
Re:Honesty? (Score:3, Insightful)
GPS jammers are about to be a hot commodity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't it be both? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about the US, but down here (.be) we actually have privacy at work. It's what should keep nosy admins out of your mailbox, coworkers from listening in on your phonecalls, etc. You could argue that you shouldn't expect privacy at work, and that you shouldn't use work time for personal use, but most people actually get phonecalls from family and friends while they're at work, and slashdot is just full of people reading slashdot at work.
I personally don't use internet at work much for personal use, but it's handy to be able to check for mail and not have to worry that an admin is sniffing my packets without the proper paperwork. It doesn't mean that I spend 90% of my time reading my mail and refreshing slashdot (F5 F5 F5), but I do expect to be able to do those things.
Here your employer is allowed to make a statistical analysis of your internet activities for instance, and he can say "You've spent 4 hours every day last week reading non-work related internet sites", but he can't say "Last month you browsed to sexygirls.com, at this time, and that time, and that time". That would be a clear violation of your privacy at work, even though you shouldn't be visiting such sites at the workplace.
Yes, and if I were to draw a strict separation between personal time and work, I'd turn off my cellphone once the clock hits 5PM, hang up on the customer I was talking to, and drive off before someone can say "I think one of our servers just crashed". You'll find that less employers have problems with reading slashdot and checking your mail at work, than saying "Oh, I'm sorry, personal time just began".
My employer hires me to perform a task, and as long as I get that task done on time in an acceptable fashion, my employer shouldn't concern himself with what/how/where I do this task and what I do in between tasks. If my employer can't live with that, I'll find another job. Anything I do after hours for work, is the kind return for him being tolerant enough to let me browse slashdot and have the occasional non-work related phone call on my cellphone.
You're at work to do a job, not to give up your rights and become a slave for 8 (or more) hours a day.
Re:Honesty? (Score:3, Insightful)
I had it happen in my own neighborhood in Chicago. Me and a buddy came out of a bar at 4am, drunk as skunks. The doorman insisted (rightly) that we not drive and he flagged us down a cab. It was a 3 mile drive home, a straight shot down a major thoroughfare. Definite no-brainer and we were even pointed in the right direction.
This bar was about a block inside the city limits. Cabs get double meter if they have to go outside the city, to cover for the fact they cannot pickup a fare outside the city limits for the return trip. This jerk took a right, then a tour of several alleys, looped into the neighboring town (Evanston) then headed back into the city (the right direction).
Though drunk, I kinda knew what was going on. I had him drop us off a block from home at a local 24hr convenience store popular with cops (they get free coffee there). The fare should have been around $7-8, but he tried to charge us $18, claiming double fare (and the extra for the "alley tour"). I threw him a ten spot and got out. He got nasty and started swearing at us, threatening to "kick our asses" and call the police. At that point, a couple of the cops inside the store came out to investigate. I knew one of them, and slurred out a "Hi John". The cabbie realized he was screwed, quickly jumped back in his car and drove away, tail between his legs.
The Cabbies are Right (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that cabbies are right about this conflict. They could be safer with GPS, but they don't want their every move to be tracked: one of the few perks of being a cabbie is freedom of movement and privacy from "the boss". But most importantly, they are the ones who are being required to pay for all these new devices. Which bad passengers will smash, as they already have, and which cabbies will have to replace at their own cost. Not the fleets they work for, which make practically all the money, but the drivers themselves.
If NYC forces them to do this, the few with any self respect will leave. The ones who will shut up and take it will be the worst cabbies around. Even worse than the current low average.
And for what? So the City can make a few more bucks playing crappy, annoying ads to us? That the cabbie has to hear a thousand times a day, every day? So the City can spy on us, too, cross-referencing our credit cards with the GPS and probably audio (and maybe video) bugs inside the cars? Bloomberg is putting cameras everywhere, connected to probably the biggest database this side of the NSA. Probably part of the NSA system that's spying on us, whether justified by "traffic congestion" or "security" or "counterterrorism" or now, "protecting the cabbies".
This system is bogus. Even sleazoid cabbies are sickened by it. We shouldn't do it. Our civil liberties are often under the most serious threat for everyone when the undesirables scream about their own early sacrifice to the loss of liberty. This time it's us trapped in the metal box with them, in the same boat. We shouldn't let Big Brother use our cab rides to rationalize screwing all of us.
Re:You bought a car in NYC because cabs are bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been taking public transit since you were sucking your mother's dick. You can take the cabs and put up with their crazy, stupid shit all the time. But if you knew anything about New York, you'd know that we'd rather be the assholes at the wheel than be at the mercy of one.
Anonymous poser Coward thinks they can talk shit about New York to a New Yorker.
Not in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
This is because it is their property, thus their rules. It would be the same deal if you were at my house, using my computer. If I wanted to, I'd be free to sit and watch what you did, and go over the router logs later. My property, my rules.
Now that doesn't mean they can access things that don't belong to them, for example if you log in to your bank to check your account at work, your employer can't capture that information and use it to log in to your bank, that's illegal.
But in general, you have no expectation of privacy from your employer at work in the US. Most employers give their employees a measure of privacy, as they realise that if you are an asshole about it, you will find people just unwilling to work for you.