Summary

A state sponsored study in Maryland has placed Webcams in the cars of teen drivers to record unsafe driving maneuvers. Heralded by parents and researchers, it is hoped the cameras will reduce the number of deaths among teen drivers. Not surprisingly, teens are less enamored with the monitoring in spite of the service provider’s claims that any embarrassing footage of the teens is suppressed.

The cameras capture about 20 seconds of footage whenever their sensors are triggered by actions resulting in excessive G-forces like swerving or slamming on the breaks, and record what is going on both externally and within the vehicle.

That footage is wirelessly transmitted to the service provider where experts review the video, include driving tips to improve the teen’s skills and post the clips on the web where parents can review them, and are encouraged to discuss the incidents with their teens. According to Jack Salzwedel, president of American Family Insurance who funded pilot programs in several states, “Results …show the program reduces risky driving behavior by 70 percent or more.”

My Thoughts

As a mom with a teen driver, if research concludes that web cameras reduce teen accidents and deaths the ability to install monitoring tools will be tempting.

But how slippery is this slope? If trials are successful, why limit the use of webcams to young drivers? Why not leave the cameras in their cars permanently? How about using webcams to monitor seniors and determine whether they are still capable of driving safely? Why not monitor people who have been arrested for drunk driving, or road rage?

In fact, why not install cameras in every car? If the research shows teens behave better when monitored, it is not a stretch to believe everyone would be more careful. Everyone makes mistakes - they drive when sleepy; get rushed; are distracted when trying to resolve a dispute between kids in the back seat; look down when fiddling with the radio, eating, talking on their cellphone, or reading a map; or does other distracting, if not outright stupid things, while driving.

Imagine how this technology could provide additional benefits:

• In situations where accidents are disputed, these webcams could give clear evidence.

• Though the current service says they don’t provide footage that would embarrass the drivers or passengers – don’t you also want to know if your teen (or passengers) is drinking? Doing drugs? Using profanity? Making out? Hanging with the wrong crowd?

• Insurance companies may discover that webcam surveillance doesn’t only help young drivers. Information about risky behavior would be invaluable to their business, it would show who they want to insure and the price they set for that insurance.

• Imagine the usefulness of this data in lawsuits and criminal cases; it could prove pivotal in everything from divorce disputes to murder trials. It isn’t a stretch, email and other digital data are already subpoenaed as evidence.

• Imagine how this functionality could save time and energy for law enforcement. It could free up time spent on traffic crimes. If evidence of speeding or other unsafe driving automatically generated a ticket, every traffic abuser could potentially be caught and punished -how do you dispute webcam evidence?

Good intentions are behind the webcam-in-cars-to-help-teen-drivers technology. Good intentions could also drive every other scenario I’ve suggested – and a great many more. Each encroachment on your privacy may have ‘good’ justifications – traffic cameras protect us in intersections; security cameras in stores airports, etc. reduce crimes; mapping your shopping habits, purchases, time online, the websites you visit, the emails you’ve sent allows customization of your experience and evidence; photographing every building, home and shed and making these searchable has tremendous benefits in a variety of scenarios; telephone tapping may prevent terrorist attacks…what your teen, or you, do and say in a car is just one more.

At what cost?

When each service comes from good intentions and provides tangible benefit, it may be hard to see these as encroachments on privacy and individual freedoms. However, cumulatively they begin to resemble the all-knowing government that leverages persistent behavioral surveillance of Orwell’s 1984.

If there is one thing history has taught, it’s that there is no such thing as unbridled surveillance and benevolence. I believe in technology, but I’m highly skeptical of how appropriately people - governments and companies in particular – may choose to use it. We are in a time when the question that needs answering isn’t what can technology enable, it’s what should technology enable, and what should be expressly off limits.

Linda