Why is it "Snooping" or "Spying"

Wish it hadn't been so long since I posted last, but hey business is business and when a basically two-person shop gets orders we work them. Congratulations to some more forward-thinking distribution clients and to a very "with it" county who has decided to exercise their leadership responsibilities regarding their vehicles, even in the face of an employee union who is clearly dedicated to protecting the small percentage of deadbeat employees who make the rest look bad.

Today I would like to ask any readers to take a look at this:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0422carsnoop22-ON.html
(annoying survey questions required, but registration is not)

The slug is:
Use of snooping devices accelerates in cars for teen drivers
Nick Bunkley Detroit News Apr. 22, 2005 03:33 PM

The article is a well written piece that explains many of the benefits of tracking teen driver's performance and has some good references to resources for interested parents who want to know more. Mr. Bunkley obviously paid attention to class during journalism school and does a workmanlike job in reporting. So, why then the cheap-shot headline?

Is a parent using accepted commercial means to protect their child "snooping", or is s/he getting off their duff and being a responsible parent, protecting their child and the others that child might kill or maim if left to his/her own devices?

It really seems to me we are trying to have everything both ways, or all ways, and nothing can be reported on anything without being critical of something. What a nation of whiners we have become. Dictionary.com defines "snooping" as: To pry into the private affairs of others, especially by prowling about.

I really fail to see how driving a car can be considered a private affair. One has to gain access to the car, comply with licensing requirements, be under the watchful eye of law enforcement, pay taxes and make numerous other totally public actions to drive. In addition, in the eyes of the law, minors have even less expectation of privacy than adults. Don't know if this aspect is right or wrong, but the law requires parents to be responsible for many actions of these minor persons, so it's an undisputed part of reality, like it or not.

It's also an undisputed fact that teenagers are gravely at risk in automobiles:

Teenagers are four times more likely to be involved in a crash than other drivers and three times more likely to die in one, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that about 15 teens are killed on America's highways every day, making crashes the leading cause of death for that age group.

This means if you wanted to make a safer environment for teenagers you could send them to Iraq, or you could take positive action to make them better able to survive here in the USA.

Most reporters and editors that I've interacted with are pretty much normal folk, the vast majority have a decent education, are married, raise families, have all the joys, cares, worries and aspirations that other 'normal' folk do, don't they? Then why this pervasive media propensity for labeling any intelligent effort to protect the nations children as "snooping" or "spying"?

Guess there's some people, like me, who just don't "get it".

One of the sources in the article is really worth looking at:
http://drivehomesafe.com/
and of course you can learn more about my views on the subject of being responsible for vehicles and drivers under your control here:
www.satviz.com

Freedom to Choose

An interesting lawsuit came to my attention today:
http://www.thetrucker.com/stories/03_05/0330_ooida.html
Looks to me as if North American Van Lines has been operating on the old tried and true 'company store' policy.

Can't comment on the merits of the case but one thing that caught my eye was the independent owner-operator's claim that North American forces the drivers to buy Qualcomm tracking equipment and service through the company.

Some years ago, Qualcomm was the pioneer in this technology, and on the one hand, I have a great deal of respect for Qualcomm ... they are certainly the world's largest player in the tracking world.

However, their equipment, service and customer relationships are 20 years old now and grown rather 'long in the tooth'. There is plenty of choice in the equipment world for individuals or small companies to choose from that can meet or beat Qualcomm in all aspects, particularly price.

One suspects that the alleged requirement from North American is a sort of phony requirement, driven by the fact that Qualcomm denies the existence of competitors and refuses to let companies integrate different brands of tracking equipment. They are very literally a "my way or the highway" kind of firm.

Individuals who are looking into tracking ought to think very long and hard before getting "married" to an all or nothing sort of provider. Do a little searching and/or contact an independent consultant before embarking on a decision like this. There are many services out there that can integrate different manufacturer's services and equipment into the same dispatch center.

Once upon a time IBM tried to tell all their customers that they had to buy IBM hardware and software .. or else. We all know how that ended. It's you business, run it wisely.