There’s been a lot of recent talk and lawsuits in relation to employee privacy, specifically as it relates to dash cameras installed in fleet-owned vehicles. It can be challenging to keep up with the latest guidelines and recommendations.
We will explore the current state of data privacy and what steps fleets can take to protect their company and employees from potential lawsuits.
MWS spoke with industry specialist, Michael Campos, vice-president of privacy at Netradyne, to learn more.
MWS: WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CURRENT CONCERNS AND GUIDELINES AROUND DRIVER PRIVACY?
MICHAEL CAMPOS: Concerns around driver privacy currently focus on the inward-facing camera, which drivers sometimes complain is an invasion of their privacy. Especially for long-haul drivers, portions of the truck cabin are not only their work environment, but also their home. We’ve addressed these concerns with various privacy modes and blurring settings, so that, for example, the inward camera is disabled entirely when the vehicle isn’t moving and everything except for the driver is blurred at other times.
In addition to addressing these very practical concerns that drivers have, there is a global privacy law trend around data privacy and protection for individuals, and fleets in the US need to understand these laws and comply. The US privacy law that gets the most attention is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA has been in place since 2008. Prominent laws like BIPA, a similar law in Texas, and Washington state’s more recent “My Health My Data” act contain specific requirements about biometric information.
Some dash camera providers and fleets have been hit with lawsuits, particularly in Illinois, alleging that these camera systems capture biometric data without the driver’s consent.
MWS: TELL US MORE ABOUT WHAT THE ACT ENTAILS.
CAMPOS: The requirements vary by state. For example, the Illinois law requires three key elements: purpose, policy and consent. Under BIPA, the data subject (the driver in this case) must receive in writing the specific purpose for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored, and used. Companies must develop a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric identifiers and information. In Illinois and Texas, there must be informed written consent or, in the context of employment, a release executed by an employee as a condition of employment.
MWS: WHAT EXACTLY ARE BIOMETRICS AND WHAT ARE DASH CAMERAS USING THEM FOR?
CAMPOS: A biometric identifier is something unique to an individual, like fingerprints or facial geometry, that can be used to identify that specific person. In our dash camera systems, the only feature that can be used to identify a person is our optional Visual Login System (VLS), which can recognize specific drivers when they are sitting in the driver’s seat.
This is similar to how a smartphone can unlock itself by scanning the owner’s face. While VLS is a convenient way to assign drivers to vehicles in shared fleets, it’s completely optional, fleets can also use other methods like key fobs or ELD integration for driver assignment.
MWS: HOW DO INWARD-FACING DASH CAMERAS FIT INTO THESE GUIDELINES?
CAMPOS: It’s important to understand that most safety features in our inward-facing cameras don’t collect or store biometric data. While these cameras can detect universal behaviors like seat belt use, head orientation, hand position, or signs of drowsiness, they’re designed to work the same way for any driver and don’t store information that could identify specific individuals. Think of it like a motion detector – it can tell that someone moved, but it doesn’t know who moved. The system processes these safety observations in real-time and only stores the safety-related findings.
That said, we still recommend that fleets be transparent about which features are turned on, what privacy settings they are using, and even getting their employees’ consent before using inward cameras. Inward-facing cameras can make a big impact on road safety but there is still a lot of “big-brother” concern around these. Even though a driver might not win a lawsuit under BIPA for in-cab safety features, investing in transparency and developing trust with the drivers, and ultimately giving them all the information that they need to decide whether they consent to this safety technology is ultimately the best way not only to avoid lawsuits, but also to build a strong safety program and a culture of safety at the fleet.
MWS: DOES THE VALUE OF INWARD-FACING CAMERAS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS?
CAMPOS: Each fleet needs to evaluate this based on their specific needs and culture, but our data shows significant safety benefits. Fleets with inward cameras enabled on experience, on average, a 71-point increase in their GreenZone score over fleets that are only using external cameras. That translates to approximately an 18 percent reduction in accidents per million miles (APMM).
For fleets that want to benefit from in-cab safety warnings, but are meeting resistance about the video recordings, we offer Enhanced Privacy Mode. This allows the system to analyze safety behaviors without storing any video. While fleets should understand that this means there’s no video record available to review during coaching sessions or to validate alerts, they may still see meaningful improvements. In a recent study, we’ve seen a 22-point increase in GreenZone score and seven percent APMM improvement.
What we’ve found most interesting is how drivers’ perspectives often shift once they experience the system. The key is our approach to positive recognition. Because our system analyzes 100 percent of drive time, it captures all instances of safe driving, not just potential issues. Drivers appreciate receiving recognition for their good habits through our driver score, and this makes them more receptive to the occasional safety tips, which are customized for each driver.
Many drivers report that the system has helped them eliminate complacency and develop better driving habits that carry over to their personal vehicles. Our mobile app enables self-coaching, putting drivers in control of their own safety improvement journey.
MWS: WHAT SHOULD FLEETS DO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES?
CAMPOS: Building on what we’ve discussed about privacy laws and driver engagement, we recommend fleets take these key steps:
- Do their research. Look up privacy laws in states where they operate.
- Create a framework for implementing the technology
- Communicate clearly about how it works.
- Articulate the purpose and its benefits
- Stay current on evolving state laws and driver sentiments
- Build driver trust through transparency and empowerment
about the interviewee
Michael Campos is a patent and privacy lawyer with a technical background in AI and the application of brain processing principles to the development of new products. With doctorates in Law and Computational Neuroscience, his work focuses on promoting the process of invention through patent portfolio development and unlocking the value of AI dashcam data through the design and implementation of thoughtful data governance and privacy policies. Prior to joining Netradyne, he helped develop a novel brain-inspired processor at Qualcomm, led deep brain stimulation research at Harvard, and investigated neural networks and brain machine interfaces at Caltech.
To help fleets implement these recommendations, we provide resources including sample consent forms and vehicle stickers. You can find these and other privacy compliance materials at http://go.netradyne.com/privacy
