Swift In Cab Camera

If the camera would shut off when the truck was at a stop still(ie breaks, sleeping, etc), I would be much more favorable towards them.

Though the camera is able to record when the ignition is off, Swift does say right out that when you are on breaks, etc., you can cover the inside lens.

When the cameras first came out, they showed a few videos of the truck parked & "off", but another truck backed right into the front. Now tell me that never happens!

Rainy wrote:

I read thru this thread and laughed...sorry. as a Postal Worker we not only had cameras on us constantly... but directional microphones recording our conversations... and inspectors on platforms with binoculars watching for theft. They didnt like to hire deaf people for 2 reasons.. 1. They had to stop working to sign...2. Not enough supervisors knew sign language to understand what was being said. They even timed how long we went to the bathroom and deducted it from our vacation time if they thought we took too long.

The whole "I'm a private person so now I have to live behind the curtain" made me chuckle. Before the camera you stripped naked in the front seat where other drivers could see u? Try being in the military without bathroom stalls.

I know swift drivers who put a shirt over it at night. Big deal. I would be more concerned about it getting triggered in construction zones and getting pulled in for rough roads I couldn't control than eating or drinking.

There is an additional review step here: when the camera uploads an event it's reviewed by a support tech and 99% of the time it's not forwarded to Swift. If it inadvertently is triggered through a construction zone or from a bumpy road unless the driver is operating in an unsafe matter, the image stream is deleted never to be seen again.

we not only had cameras on us constantly... but directional microphones recording our conversations

and inspectors on platforms with binoculars watching for theft.

Before the camera you stripped naked in the front seat where other drivers could see u?

I know swift drivers who put a shirt over it at night. Big deal.

Hi RainyD,

I am glad I made you chuckle about my privacy☺

I did not realize that the post office was so strict. It unfortunate how they treat deaf drivers. Swift has a number of deaf drivers and I spoke with one of the mentors who had a deaf student. From my understanding, Swift goes out of thier way to support those drivers.

Anyway, the cameras does also record sound, so conversations are recorded.

When I sleep, 95% of the time without clothes. It being so hot now, both windows are open and the curtain is slightly open. It cuts down on laundry.

Unfortunately we can't cover the camera with a shirt because it is considered tampering.

Thanks for the info!

Driver wrote:

Unfortunately we can't cover the camera with a shirt because it is considered tampering.

Driver, this is false. When you are logged as off-duty, you can cover the inward facing lens with a shirt or cap. This is clearly stated in Swift's camera policy and is not considered tampering. Just remember to uncover the lens when you start driving. You really should review the camera policy posted on Swift's driver portal. .

Driver, this is false. When you are logged as off-duty, you can cover the inward facing lens with a shirt or cap.

Thanks. I am corrected and read through the policy.

We can cover the inside lens and leave the outside unblocked when off duty.

I also contacted the Swift Safety department for additional questions.

.Anyway, I think the drive cam saga thread is done and I feel a lot more comfortable. I do appreciate everyone's input and enjoy this forum for information. I am a relatively new driver, so the site helps a lot! Thanks.

Sure enough, the light comes on. Did you get any feedback on those times, did anyone want to talk to you about it?

No, my driving was on point at those times. I have had an occasional coachable moment since, though.

My Swift inside camera red light does occasionally come on. I believe that's for its own operation. Once it came on while talking to my DM. I asked her but she had no idea.

I've already stated what I was told by our lead driver. And I've already demonstrated the camera capabilities for remote operation. Not sure why you doubt me, but, whatever. I won't lose any sleep over it.

You bolded this last sentence. "Some" doesn't mean anything unless you know "which". Swift isn't going to hide something like that because if that "secret" gets out, lawyers will jump in. Fast.

I bolded the last sentence b/c it was the relevant part. g-town said remote activation wasn't possible. That sentence states authoritatively that it is.

If you want to live a paranoid lifestyle, well it's a free country. I'd rather just live a clean life and not worry. And instead of cutting down on the Oreos, I'll just pay more attention to the buzz lines.

Paranoid lifestyle? How so? I've presented simple, straightforward facts. No conspiracy theories here.

I don't have a problem with the camera or its remote activation capability. But I drive a day-cab. I would, however, have a problem with it if my truck was also my off-duty living space, as it is for most otr drivers. It's wrong for a video/audio recorder to be "on" when a driver is off duty.

ITS NOT ON WHEN THE IGNITION IS OFF !!!!

In our trucks it is on even with ignition off. The only way to turn it off is to remove all power with the battery disconnect switch.

Just curious. If yours is off with ignition off, then why do you need to throw a shirt over it when off duty?

It seems that swifts policy (allowing you to cover camera while off duty) acknowledges that an active camera facing the driver while off duty is a violation of ones privacy. But, how do you prevent a possible upload of a private conversation while off duty in your living space? Is there some way to block the microphone?

Paul J wants to continue:

Just curious. If yours is off with ignition off, then why do you need to throw a shirt over it when off duty?

Paul I have had 3 different cameras during the last two years (2 were for a beta-test), each operating differently, so I apologize for any confusion I may have created. The version that Swift selected and is installing en-mass, does indeed remain active when the ignition is off. But like I have been harping-on over and over, it will not upload video unless triggered by an event, impact if parked. It is not a real-time data capturing/storage device. As an example: if you are parked for the night, and another vehicle strikes your truck, the impact will likely trigger an upload that will record the incident and capture the offending party.

Paul J wrote this as well:

It seems that swifts policy (allowing you to cover camera while off duty) acknowledges that an active camera facing the driver while off duty is a violation of ones privacy. But, how do you prevent a possible upload of a private conversation while off duty in your living space? Is there some way to block the microphone?

No, it acknowledges covering the in-cab facing camera while off-duty is not a policy violation. That's it. Do you really think the legality of this hasn't already been challenged multiple times? Look up the State of California and how their supreme court ruled on this very question. Regardless, I am not going to get into any debate; legal, ethical, or otherwise about violation of privacy. I am not a lawyer and do not intend to encourage or extend further discussion on an already exhausting, highly misunderstood and controversial subject. For me, and this is where it begins and ends, it's a question of public safety and asset protection; period.

My camera has never been triggered while parked or off-duty. Sure you could probably muffle the speaker with a piece of duct tape, but it's not something that I'd bother to do because when I am off-duty I am usually asleep or not in the truck.

Like "Driver" suggested, lets move on.

Paul J wants to continue:

Just curious. If yours is off with ignition off, then why do you need to throw a shirt over it when off duty?

Paul I have had 3 different cameras during the last two years (2 were for a beta-test), each operating differently, so I apologize for any confusion I may have created. The version that Swift selected and is installing en-mass, does indeed remain active when the ignition is off. But like I have been harping-on over and over, it will not upload video unless triggered by an event, impact if parked. It is not a real-time data capturing/storage device. As an example: if you are parked for the night, and another vehicle strikes your truck, the impact will likely trigger an upload that will record the incident and capture the offending party.

Paul J wrote this as well:

It seems that swifts policy (allowing you to cover camera while off duty) acknowledges that an active camera facing the driver while off duty is a violation of ones privacy. But, how do you prevent a possible upload of a private conversation while off duty in your living space? Is there some way to block the microphone?

No, it acknowledges covering the in-cab facing camera while off-duty is not a policy violation. That's it. Do you really think the legality of this hasn't already been challenged multiple times? Look up the State of California and how their supreme court ruled on this very question. Regardless, I am not going to get into any debate; legal, ethical, or otherwise about violation of privacy. I am not a lawyer and do not intend to encourage or extend further discussion on an already exhausting, highly misunderstood and controversial subject. For me, and this is where it begins and ends, it's a question of public safety and asset protection; period.

My camera has never been triggered while parked or off-duty. Sure you could probably muffle the speaker with a piece of duct tape, but it's not something that I'd bother to do because when I am off-duty I am usually asleep or not in the truck.

Like "Driver" suggested, lets move on.

You make it difficult to move on when you respond to me with questionable claims such as :

"ITS NOT ON WHEN THE IGNITION IS OFF !!!!"

Or, that the legality of theses issues have been settled by the CA Supreme Court.

I believe that an off duty, otr trucker, whose job, for all intents and purposes, necessitates that he/she reside in their truck/sleeper berth when off duty has a reasonable expectation of privacy while off duty in that space, similar to your expectation of privacy in a dressing room, bathroom, locker room, etc.. Are you saying that the courts have declared that a trucker has no reasonable expectation of privacy when off duty in their sleeper berth? I am happy to drop the subject, but would really appreciate a link or reference in support of this claim.

If the camera would shut off when the truck was at a stop still(ie breaks, sleeping, etc), I would be much more favorable towards them.

Though the camera is able to record when the ignition is off, Swift does say right out that when you are on breaks, etc., you can cover the inside lens.

Nobody's reading my stuff!! 😩

Paul J wants to continue:

Just curious. If yours is off with ignition off, then why do you need to throw a shirt over it when off duty?

Paul I have had 3 different cameras during the last two years (2 were for a beta-test), each operating differently, so I apologize for any confusion I may have created. The version that Swift selected and is installing en-mass, does indeed remain active when the ignition is off. But like I have been harping-on over and over, it will not upload video unless triggered by an event, impact if parked. It is not a real-time data capturing/storage device. As an example: if you are parked for the night, and another vehicle strikes your truck, the impact will likely trigger an upload that will record the incident and capture the offending party.

Paul J wrote this as well:

It seems that swifts policy (allowing you to cover camera while off duty) acknowledges that an active camera facing the driver while off duty is a violation of ones privacy. But, how do you prevent a possible upload of a private conversation while off duty in your living space? Is there some way to block the microphone?

No, it acknowledges covering the in-cab facing camera while off-duty is not a policy violation. That's it. Do you really think the legality of this hasn't already been challenged multiple times? Look up the State of California and how their supreme court ruled on this very question. Regardless, I am not going to get into any debate; legal, ethical, or otherwise about violation of privacy. I am not a lawyer and do not intend to encourage or extend further discussion on an already exhausting, highly misunderstood and controversial subject. For me, and this is where it begins and ends, it's a question of public safety and asset protection; period.

My camera has never been triggered while parked or off-duty. Sure you could probably muffle the speaker with a piece of duct tape, but it's not something that I'd bother to do because when I am off-duty I am usually asleep or not in the truck.

Like "Driver" suggested, lets move on.

You make it difficult to move on when you respond to me with questionable claims such as :

"ITS NOT ON WHEN THE IGNITION IS OFF !!!!"

Or, that the legality of theses issues have been settled by the CA Supreme Court.

I believe that an off duty, otr trucker, whose job, for all intents and purposes, necessitates that he/she reside in their truck/sleeper berth when off duty has a reasonable expectation of privacy while off duty in that space, similar to your expectation of privacy in a dressing room, bathroom, locker room, etc.. Are you saying that the courts have declared that a trucker has no reasonable expectation of privacy when off duty in their sleeper berth? I am happy to drop the subject, but would really appreciate a link or reference in support of this claim.

Paul you twist my words and didn't read my apology. I said to look it up and make up your own mind. Try Google, you'll get a lot of hits on in cab camera privacy issues, many on Cali. It's been challenged in the courts and will likely continue.

I also said I am not a lawyer and that I am not going to debate it.