Automotive Telematics: Big Brother?

Human Rights Protection In The Telematics Industry

Failing to heed warnings about the misuse of telematics technology could seriously damage the industry. A code of practice should become a priority issue.

One of the biggest problems facing the telematics industry is that it is in danger of falling prey to what you might call ‘The Orwell Syndrome’. Back in 1949 George Orwell wrote what some consider his most powerful polemic against the intrusive machinery of state, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Its recurrent theme is that Big Brother Is Watching You. In the world he envisaged, the individual could no longer think or act for himself. To some, telematics provides that Big Brother mechanism. A delivery driver, for instance, is capable of being constantly tracked, and his efficiency measured. Likewise a service engineer’s working progress can be followed throughout the day – and worse still, his movements during free time can be tracked if he uses the company van or estate car at night or at weekends.

This raises a wealth of legal, moral and ethical issues in Britain, a country which is at the forefront of recognising this problem. But until recently little had been done to forge any kind of remedy. “There is a lot of suspicion surrounding this technology.” warned one Union official

A forward-thinking legal practice, Amery-Parkes of Birmingham, England,  is another body aware of the ramifications of such Big Brother tactics by employers. Its partner David Faithful recently published a paper on the subject, and as a consequence received considerable interest from within the telematics industry. This in turn led to a seminar at his practice’s offices, attended by such diverse individuals as David Smith, Assistant Information Commissioner  (Whose role covers the Data Protection Act, and will grow to envelope further legislation currently being framed within the area of protecting the public from misuse of future technologies) and representatives from the vehicle leasing industry, the insurance industry, telematics systems developers, the trades unions and the motor industry.

Key to the issue is not the data itself, but how it is used. The data controller is the key individual. Whilst everybody agrees that the owner of valuable mobile assets has a right to know where they are and how they are being used or abused, there is a very real danger of overstepping the bounds of reasonable interest. For instance what right does an owner have over the use of assets outside working hours? One example is the gas service engineer who, for reasons of overall efficiency, takes his vehicle home with him. While it is parked up that service van is every bit as valuable as it is when it is in being used during a working day. But the driver might consider that his privacy is being invaded if the fleet manager is able to determine that he uses it to, say, pop to the supermarket in the evening. Conversely, that same fleet manager would also be able to tell if that engineer is doing ‘foreigners’ in his free time, using the credibility of his job – not to mention supplies and tools from within the van – to carry out repairs for cash on a friend’s central heating system. One way around such conflicts is to provide the driver with an over-ride facility, so that during off-duty time the system will no longer report in. Another is that the driving log of the vehicle created via the telematics system is accessible only by the driver. Neither of these are satisfactory answers, though; what is really needed is a clearly defined set of working practices that are agreeable to employer and employee alike.

Other areas that are of concern within this same arena include the provision of vehicle use data to insurance companies, who can use it to determine the risk factors to create tailored policies for which they might charge appropriate premia. They might just as easily restrict geographical use of a vehicle to what they consider safe areas (this is something already being tried by certain car hire companies in the USA and in South Africa) which again minimise the risk to assets insured by them.

Ian Moss of Amery-Parkes neatly summed up the complexity of the situation when he pointed out that the telematics hardware and its service provider are just two links in a much longer chain of relationships that include the system manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer (or coachbuilding company) and stretch right through to the employee who is eventually going to use that vehicle. The he shot the killer question: “Where are the boundaries of legitimate use of data drawn?” There is often an implied element of mutual responsibility and trust within an employee’s contact of employment, but this is vague and so is open to interpretation. As a lawyer specialising in employment law he is all too familiar with employment tribunals. These attempt to dispense justice to aggrieved employees, usually by interpreting the difference between theory and reality in contracts of employment. He intimated that telematics data is likely to open up another area for disputes, particularly as Article Eight of the 1998 Human Rights Act appears to provide protection against invasions of privacy.

As David Faithful explained, it is not just employers and employees who are likely to lock horns over the use of data gathered by telemetry from vehicles. The police too are likely to covet the availability of information on where and how a vehicle is being used. Whilst their initial interest might be in establishing the cause of accidents by being able to evaluate information gathered in the moments leading up to a collision,  certain officers might also like to gain access to data on speed limit infringements and other offences which are recorded by a telematics system. David Smith from the IC picked up on this point, outlining the risk of a policeman gaining access  to such data, but then running the risk of… “trying to draw too many conclusions from too little real data.” Certain data, specifically that which can show the commission (alleged or real) of an offence is considered ‘sensitive’ under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. David Faithful summarised that legal issues are likely to arise as a result of the storage of  such sensitive data, and its distribution to third parties such as insurers, risk managers and the police. The accuracy and its subsequent use to discipline, punish or dismiss a driver is, he suggests, a minefield. “The police will demand this information.” He added. “This is a foregone conclusion.”

Another member of the Commission, Ian Bourne, pointed out that there could be subsequent problems from purchasers of second-hand vehicles. “How would they react to finding out that the car or van they have bought has a telematics system on board, and that somebody is capable of gathering information from it on where the car is used, how it is driven, and so on?” This, however, is likely to be less of a problem than might be perceived; any system will require an airtime agreement to a control centre, and unless such an agreement is in place then the data will stay within the system’s memory. Which means that it stays within the owner’s control.

This seminar was the first of what it is hoped will be regular meetings which will produce a cohesive industry-wide response to the very valid concerns of those drivers who will be forced to work under the watchful eye of telematics technology. In fairness to the industry, there is already movement in that direction. Ian Sandford of Tracker explained that his company’s aim is “To help employer and employee alike” and that Tracker Network already provide what he describes as a ‘technological work-round” such as an over-ride switch for off-duty time. This, he added, would not affect the system’s ability to track the vehicle in the event of it being stolen. Global Telematics’ Nigel Porter feels that “employees haven’t be briefed adequately” about the way that systems can work in their favour, by improving safety and security. He also added that he is already being asked by his clients about how the systems comply with the Data Protection Act.

Simon Hunt of BAE Systems feels that there is perhaps too much emphasis being placed on the location element of telematics. “This is another information technology system” he said, “one that is simply extended to mobile assets. It can provide valuable data on such elements as mileage, load temperature and the like – none of which are location-specific.” This broadly concurs with the feelings of Mike Waters of ArvalPHH, one of the world’s biggest vehicle leasing operations. “This is technology that allows us to do what we already do [monitor vehicle use and condition] but better, and more thoroughly.” It was Mike who neatly summarised the present situation, though: “There are so many issues and implications, and no case law precedents to fall back on. Telematics is something that, if we are not careful, could come back and bite us.”

Asked what the industry can do to mollify the fears and concerns of drivers, Roger Sealey from the TGWU responded pointedly that “the battle has already been lost. The spy is no longer in the cab, now it is in the sky. There is a lot of suspicion about how the information is being used. Drivers are no longer free agents, and they feel that the situation is getting worse, thanks to JIT [Just In Time] deliveries and other pressures.” The telematics industry, he argues, needs a set of transparent minimum standards, via  a voluntary code of practice.

Roger simply confirmed what BAE, Fleetstar Global and Tracker – the four systems manufacturers who took up the invitation to attend the Amery-Parkes meeting – already had in mind; the issues raised by the disparate and wide-ranging sets of opinions threaten to undermine the many positive aspects that the adoption of telematics technology can deliver. If drivers are to be persuaded that the systems can work to improve their safety and security, and that the data gathered will not be misused by those privy to it, then their reaction against its use is likely to be reduced. Similarly, fleet operators are likely to be scared away from adopting telematics-based asset management systems unless they can be assured that they will be able to define where the borders of acceptable use of gathered data lie.

Whilst the arguments about use and misuse of gathered data are likely to be fought out between employer and employee, it is down to the industry to put its case in a simple, straightforward and easily-digested form. A comprehensively-agreed, pan-industry code of practice is the only way forward

Dennis Foy

 

Automotive Telematics "A Desperately Needed Book   The Automotive Telematics   World Has Been Waiting For!" Written by industry expert Dennis Foy, Automotive Telematics explores the history, present state and exciting future prospects of the transport telematics industry.

"The most complete and detailed account of the telematics industry. Provides a very good introduction and insight to the history and possibilities for the future of technology enhanced driving."
Jonathan Loretto, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young

Click Here To Continue Reading

 

Copyright © 2003 Art Impact Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Online Web Marketing Strategy by NowSell.com