Big Brother riding shotgun in government-issued vehicles

Big Brother has been infringing on workplace privacy for some time now, but technology previously used primarily in the private sector is making its way out and into government-issued vehicles. Many administrators are suggesting that GPS-ified vehicles not only crack down on on-the-clock leisure activities, but curb wasteful spending on excess fuel / lost productivity. Proponents also claim that such a setup enables them to better monitor how efficient (or not) their current processes are. Granted, it's not difficult to see just how polarizing the issue can be, and the Teamsters are already negotiating more contracts to keep workers from being peered upon. Still, if you've grown used to rolling your state-owned ride out to GameStop during lunch, we'd recommend taking a (very) good look around to ensure that you're truly cruising solo -- or, you know, just stick by the rules.

[Image courtesy of HamptonRoads]

[mike @ Nov 16th 2007 8:59AM]

These vehicles are public property. I don't see any reason not to know exactly where they are at all times. For police and fire vehicles it makes sense for dispatching, but why not know where that GS-15's government issued car is during the work day? If I'm paying for his gas, insurance and maintinence he shouldn't be lending that car to his wife or taking weekend trips in it. It should be only for daily government work.

Mike

[Mark @ Nov 16th 2007 12:49PM]

First they came for the federal employees...
I didn't stop them.


Its a slippery slope Mike. Today, the government is tracking its employees, tomorrow its tracking its contractors, day after tomorrow the contractors are tracking their employees, and before you know it, GPS monitoring is a requirement for getting a job.

I bet if you had told somebody 10-15 years ago that companies would decide whether to hire you based on your credit report, they'd have treated you as a nutjob.

[John Sinshack @ Dec 1st 2007 8:11AM]

I think mike is aiming to ask that only government issued and maintained vehicles are being monitored.

If taxpayers are paying for these vehicles, then we should definitely have at least limited control over unauthorized use.

[Rocketboy @ Nov 16th 2007 9:00AM]

So it's a bad thing for employers to make sure that their employees are not abusing the equipment and perks that they are given? And it's doubly worse when we are the ones paying for the abuse?

[Chris @ Nov 16th 2007 9:05AM]

Infringing? Let's not get carried away here. The expectation of privacy at work is pretty limited.

This is the way things are going, but the question eventually be, when is enough, enough. Government employees often have to go through metal detectors, have background investigations, drug tests, submit to polygraph examinations for high-level clearances, have their workstations scanned for unauthorized software, block and track access to certain websites, and the list goes on. This is part of the terms of employment.

I guess we'll know when employers (including the government) go to far when employees start quiting their jobs.

[The Pepto Pimp @ Nov 16th 2007 10:11AM]

I wouldn't trust the US Govt (if that's the Goverment we're talking about here) to notice a corellation between employees quitting and tougher restrictions on employee behaviors. I would expect that our government will simply hire less competent people because the people capable of doing the work well are unwilling to work for the our hypocritical goverment.

[Jason @ Nov 16th 2007 9:25AM]

I think this is a great idea. Mike is right in that these are publicly-owned vehicles and thus should be subject to the scrutiny of restricted usage and monitoring. And let's not forget that this type of monitoring also protects those that are properly using their GSA's from false incrimination. My only exception to this plan would be deep-cover vehicles, for obvious reasons -- GPS signals aren't tough to lock on to.

[Brent Gaskey @ Nov 16th 2007 9:29AM]

Well, Working for a fire department- and being the guy who maintains the GPS's in our rigs I would have to say that our guys love them. It allows our dispatchers to send the closest unit to an emergency call, and render aid that much faster. I haven't heard any complaints from the PD's in our area that use the same system either.

Bottom line is if your doing your job, its a godsend, if your not... Well... The only downside I can see with tracking all those faceless G'vt underlings is now we have to hire someone to track the faceless G'vt underlings.

[Josh L @ Nov 16th 2007 12:29PM]

Nah, not really. It wouldn't be difficult at all to make some tracking software, set up some boundaries for each vehicle, and shoot the boss of that vehicle's driver an email/phone call/page/text message whenever the boundaries are breached. Then the boss could make a decision for himself as to whether it was really a policy infraction.

Then again, we are talking about the government here, and inefficiency is their middle name ;)

[Adam @ Nov 16th 2007 9:33AM]

These vehicles serve the public and are public property. Even if they weren't, there's nothing wrong with either an employer tracking his/her employees or with wanting to monitor officers' activities so as to prevent the abuse of power and authority. It's actually a great idea that can serve multiple purposes.

I, for one, welcome our overlord overseeing overlords.

[RC @ Nov 16th 2007 9:34AM]

Just think how this would have cramped Mulder and Scully's style!

[Jugomugo @ Nov 16th 2007 9:40AM]

Just make sure while you're at Gamestop you ask to pre-order Battletoads.

[Shane @ Nov 16th 2007 10:13AM]

Yes, there are regulations for vehicle use published by the organization I work for but they haven't been updated since 1987! They do cover some very clear guidelines but still do not reflect changes in society that have happened since they were written.

You are correct in that the technology itself does not make the decisions...

It is ultimately up to a human to decide what is and is not appropriate. Hopefully logic will prevail over bureacracy in most cases (unless you happen to work for the US government...)

[Shane @ Nov 16th 2007 9:43AM]

I have actually thought about doing this for my own department's government issued vehicle. To the best of my knowledge our fleet services department has not implemented GPS tracking in ANY of its vehicles but they are certainly trying to crack down on personal use...

There is a bit of an issue, however...What if I take my government issued vehicle home in preparation and anticipation for an extended (business related) road trip?

What if I happen to be driving my government vehicle on business but need to run a couple of quick personal errands (within reason) or grab some lunch along the way?

Am I truly expected to go back and retrieve my own personal vehicle which might be many many miles away just for these kinds of situations? That would be a large expenditure of gas and on the whole would have a larger impact on the environment than just allowing a personal errand or two while on the clock.

Some would argue "Do those errands off the clock!" That isn't practical in many cases and still causes additional use of gas.

There is clearly a line between blatant abuse of resources and running a few quick errands along the way while out and about on business.

[Don @ Nov 16th 2007 10:01AM]

Every government agency I've ever worked for has had clearly defined policies regarding personal use of government vehicles. If your policies allow you use the vehicle for occasional personal errands, you won't have any problems. If they don't, then don't use the vehicle for personal errands. It's pretty simple. Furthermore, GPS itself won't decide if you're abusing your privileges. That still requires a human decision-maker, i.e. your supervisor, who will know the rules and (hopefully) apply them fairly and appropriately.

I'm currently in the early stages of adding both GPS and video cameras to our transit vehicles. My drivers are thrilled because we both know they are fine upstanding employees, but there's a lot of people out there who AREN'T fine or upstanding citizens, and those agency logos on the side of the vehicle are like a big fat target saying, "come sue me and get free money." Cameras and GPS protect the agency, its employees, and its taxpayers.

[RC @ Nov 16th 2007 10:46AM]

My dad used to drive government vehicles all the time when he took trips. He'd do as you say, bringing it home so he could leave from there, or come home in it and take it back in the morning rather than stopping by work. I don't see what issue this would cause. It's not like he's parking the car for hour at a strip club and the GPS would show that.

[mike @ Nov 16th 2007 11:05AM]

Shane,

I don't think the situations you've outlines would be defined as abusing the use of a government vehicle. A planning business trip using the vehicle wouldn't put someone outside the confines of appropriate use. I would think (however the news is full of dumb people) that for most users, knowing that the vehicle is tracked would be enough to at least consider if what they are doing is "right". Someone who wants to get around the system will find a way, but all of this data would have to be looked at by a person.

I know that years ago, one of the trucking companies (and probably a lot of them now) tracked their trucks and the routes. If the driver left the route they had to report why (alternate route because of traffic, mechanical failure etc). I was told that the trucks could be shut down remotely, but I don't know if that's really the case.

[eX @ Nov 16th 2007 10:37AM]

You're a fool saying that. Any government is like that and private businesses are often very tough on their employees with restrictions. I realize there should be a certain limit and that some companies go over the roof, but your business cannot be successful if its not managed properly. Government restrictions should be tougher as otherwise people don't want to do jack shit (most people tend to do that when they get to relax too much at work, and it doesn't have to be only bad people). Since government is ran by tax money, I want to see the money put to a reasonable use rather than being pissed away. I don't see anything wrong with knowing where patrol vehicles are for instance, and in fact it could help with safety and emergency coordination too. The only privacy you have at work is in the restroom, other than that, employer has full right to know what you've been up to while on the clock and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Shane @ Nov 16th 2007 10:14AM]

Crap...Replied to the wrong comment. That should have been posted to the following comment.

[TVGenius @ Nov 16th 2007 11:18AM]

How about not leaving police cars and fire trucks idling while they're doing non-work stuff? Every police officer and fireman I've ever seen leaves their car or fire engine idling in the parking lot while they're eating lunch, meeting with someone or shopping for groceries. I literally watched two cops have a 45 minute lunch with both their cars parked outside idling the entire time. And why does the entire fire truck have to go grocery shopping? How about one person in one of the dozen fire dept. pickup trucks our town has for the six stations.

[Andir3.0 @ Nov 16th 2007 12:53PM]

Actually, I had a Fire Chief tell me one time that it's actually good to get the truck out on these "grocery" runs instead of only running them on emergency calls. I just accepted it and really didn't question it as he was good friends with me, but now that I think about it I'd like to know the technical reason for it.

I could maybe see an issue with carbon or something, but I don't know enough about the workings of a diesel engine to state specifics. (ie: Is it bad for the truck to sit there and instantly go on high demand all the time without warm up? Do they produce a lot of carbon buildup running at high output all the time without having a "casual" trip down the road to clean it out? Does it keep the engine oiled better on slow runs? So many questions on maintenance as opposed to the cost of a few gallons of fuel...)

[Rob @ Nov 16th 2007 11:38AM]

Beautiful, I'm all for it. Now, let's also start information the population in general about all the pork-projects that are hidden in Washington. Why is it so secretive? They must be hiding it for a reason. I'm all for open policy. Make that widely available to the public and let us decide. Let's make our representatives in D.C. our representatives, not our decision makers.

[Yankees368 @ Nov 16th 2007 12:49PM]

Thank god the state van I drove all summer for work didn't have GPS tracking. GPS nav woulda been nice though

[Andir3.0 @ Nov 16th 2007 12:55PM]

I don't think they are talking about a GPS nav unit. IT would be more for tracking instead of giving you directions. A lot of major trucking companies use them to track tractor mileage remotely.

[Yankees368 @ Nov 16th 2007 12:57PM]

Oh, I know. Several vans and cars in the pool did have GPS tracking though

[MaryBeth-TeleNav @ Nov 16th 2007 1:22PM]

No one has really brought up here the idea that GPS can actually protect employees - whether they are government or private sector. You've probably seen the bumper stickers on vehicles that say "how is my driving?" If you're a driver and falsely accused of speeding or other infractions, having GPS on your vehicle can protect you from false claims. We (TeleNav) have a GPS tracking product for cell phones and this has happened more than once. For example, a city garbage truck driver was falsely accused of a hit-and-run to a parked vehicle but the city was able to check the records and determine that none of their trucks were in the area at the time. We've also had customers who've been able to find stranded employees (stuck in snow banks for example) as well. For employees, GPS can protect you - not to mention possibly save your life if you're stranded.

[Don @ Nov 16th 2007 2:26PM]

"Cameras and GPS protect the agency, its employees, and its taxpayers [from frivolous lawsuits]."