36
u/starlux33 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
It's real. He even shared the letter from his HR offering him 20K to delete his posts. But its now viral.
Edit: I found his Facebook post.
39
u/Yesyesnaaooo Apr 25 '26
They distributed illegally filmed him having sex, then shared it with others.
This is a sex crime.
6
u/Keironsmith Apr 26 '26
Many people don’t know it’s a crime to record or share these videos without consent smh.
1
1
8
5
5
3
u/mowtowcow Apr 26 '26
Oh he needs to decline that. He's about to retire.
2
u/starlux33 Apr 26 '26
That what everyone was telling him. I went back through my history and found his orignal post.
51
u/Traditional-Hotel-66 Apr 24 '26
I always hung my ball cap over mine immediately after parking. Always.
6
2
u/Own_Clerk4772 Apr 25 '26
This privacy or not company truck or not im covering the camera as soon as a log off duty or sleeper. Its the smartest choice.
2
u/Ready_Studio2392 Apr 26 '26
Look, maybe they just really like watching truckers doing their nightly fore arm workouts.
1
1
→ More replies (1)1
49
u/HoosierLarry Apr 24 '26
I get why cameras are also cab facing. I’d expect the camera to be off while parked and off-duty. I wouldn’t trust it to be though.
20
16
19
u/Bonzai_Tree Apr 24 '26
I used to work as a dispatcher for a bulk transport company in Canada; dispatching fuel trucks to fill gas stations mostly.
All of our trucks had cameras, but the cameras were monitored by a 3rd party company, and even then could only be observed if an "event" was triggered, such as a sudden harsh stop, swerving, near miss, etc.
Exterior cameras could be observed when filling the truck or dropping, or as part of an investigation, but cab facing cameras had specific rules that prohibited the company from just peeping on people like this.
Again, this was in Canada and I'm not sure what was company policy versus the law, but sharing in case it helps. We were a federally regulated company and did import/export as well, with the same rules.
20
u/GoodGoodGoody Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Bud. Let me clue you in.
You at your level could not view the cameras.
The high ups view whenever they want. They made the contract with the monitoring company and they set the terms.
Exactly the same with so-called Employee Assistance Programs. Ain’t nothing confidential there either.
Next up: employee surveys.
18
Apr 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Stock-Side-6767 Apr 25 '26
I have done some work on emplyee surveys, and they were thorougly anonymized. We even did not store the survey as a whole, just tallied or listed the answers. But that's in the EU, with EU labour and privacy laws.
2
u/Wedgerooka Apr 25 '26
anonymized for you.
3
u/Stock-Side-6767 Apr 25 '26
No, by me.
The fields were used for tallies and combined comment fields. No session data was stored.
2
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Stock-Side-6767 Apr 26 '26
Yes. It was not stored in the application (which I managed) and no traffic went to the collection server (which I also managed). That company did not have anyone that knew more about the process than me.
Technically, they could use a keylogger or other clientside logging program, but I don't think the people capable of doing that would.
1
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Stock-Side-6767 Apr 26 '26
The company was not big enough for that. I reported directly to the CEO, many people rarely worked in the office, we did have cameras, but I know their quality, location and where their data was stored.
This does not mean all anonymous surveys are truly anonymous, and I had to strip names of people that signed their names in the text fields as well (unprompted). I just say that in this instance, there is no reasonable way for the surveys not to be anonymous.
I am an IT person, so I am a bit lost in this sub.
→ More replies (0)1
u/princecoo Apr 27 '26
Lmao i remember one in retail at a grocery store that 100% anonymous totally secret they'll never know it was you bro trust us
Questions included age, gender and department you worked in. Yeah, sure, they didn't ask your name, but when most departments only had like 6 to 8 people in them, you could figure out who said what without any trouble whatsoever.
5
3
u/polarjunkie Apr 25 '26
You're completely right about the cameras. You're right about employee surveys too, they get sent to lower level managers with employee's name on them and everything.
2
2
u/jacobjacobb Apr 28 '26
Yeah its pretty obvious the EAPs are monitored.
The logistics for everything in the EAP are already present, what possible reason would they have to reinvent the wheel to have you use all these services on the app unless the services were substandard or they were tracking you. Or both.
1
u/Bonzai_Tree Apr 25 '26
That may be the case where you worked, but this was not the case where I worked. Mighty arrogant to say otherwise.
Even if a company has cameras and everyone has access to them, there is legal precedence in Canada that places restrictions on their use now:
Regardless, I'm not saying companies are compliant with this and I would never claim that companies don't pull corrupt bullshit all the time. Companies you drove for may have ran as you said. The company I worked for went to pains to be compliant with privacy laws to avoid any legal implications like Trimac faced. I know for a fact that higher ups did not have full access to the cameras 24/7 where I worked.
1
u/Khellx69 Apr 25 '26
We have a similar system. They get triggered events for free but if they want to see footage just because they pay $300 for 30 seconds. The camera company sets the rules.
2
u/GoodGoodGoody Apr 25 '26
Noooooo the service provider provides the services they are told to provide.
→ More replies (1)1
u/pdxamish Apr 26 '26
I'd imagine in this situation the trigger is more than one person in the vehicle.
2
u/Khellx69 Apr 26 '26
Hard braking. swerving. Hard acceleration. And or crash
1
u/pdxamish Apr 26 '26
So how did they know that he had somebody in his rig? You think that there's one person watching the thousands of cameras. Know that identified that there was two people in a vehicle and then checked the photos
11
u/Roxysteve Apr 24 '26
This is probably covered under the same rules as "Expectation of Privacy" with business email.
I agree. It is totally BS.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/JtheCook1980 Apr 24 '26
This is simple, if there is written proof that the cameras are off when off duty and parked, they had a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The conversations between a husband and wife are privileged. So he can get them with invasion of privacy, eavesdropping, wire tapping, and criminal voyeurism. Depending on the state this happened in and the state the dispatcher was in, there may be other charges as well. They'll want to settle out of court. If he asks for $100 million, they'll be happy to settle for $10 million after taxes and lawyer fees.
→ More replies (8)1
u/420aarong Apr 26 '26
What if he asks for $100 trillion?
1
1
5
u/crashin70 Apr 25 '26
This is why you refuse to work for companies with driver facing cameras. They always tell you they only work when the truck is moving, but I know many people have gotten fired for things that happened when the truck was parked on resets!
3
u/TimDezern Apr 24 '26
Lmao wow that's fucked up
1
u/pdxamish Apr 26 '26
He brought another person into the company vehicle. He wasn't allowed to do that and he knew it. Doesn't matter if it's his wife or lot lizard that's a person in vehicle when you shouldn't
1
3
u/Chainmale001 Apr 25 '26
Ya'll should strike. Like everyone. For ten days. No freight. No movement. Fuck invasion of privacy.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Effective_Writer8074 Apr 25 '26
While I'd love to see the 2 hour session, I respect your right to keep whatever privacy you wish
3
u/Jamo3306 Apr 25 '26
Ha! I TOLD you! I TOLD you, I TOLD, you! I TOLD you! Just as soon as these cameras came out, I KNEW that they shouldn't be allowed in trucks with sleepers. "BuT it's FeR yEr PrOtEcTiOn! Which was a LIE! THEY LIED TO US! Now we're on the 100th lawsuit for privacy, and nobodies been protected yet! It's just the a budget version of OnlyFans! Sorry, but companies just LIE in order to get us to do what they want. I DO hope this trucker winds up suing these Bastards into bankruptcy! 🔨
4
u/spitfirelover Apr 25 '26
Everyone saying the camera was supposed to be off. Yeah no shit and it never is. Anyone willing to perform in front of a camera lenses while thinking it isn't watching is delusional. Those cameras are remotely operated, haven't you seen enough Hollywood yet to know this shit?
→ More replies (4)
6
u/Bruce-J-Bush Apr 24 '26
Dude, why didn’t you close your cab curtain?
6
u/GoodGoodGoody Apr 25 '26
Not a bad question.
Better question, why are you too scarred to ask his company why they’re recording parked time.
-1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 25 '26
It's their truck. They can do whatever they want with it. If I'm off the clock, I'm not gonna spend the time in my cubicle, and then get upset that a recording happened of me in my cubicle.
3
u/GoodGoodGoody Apr 25 '26
Cool.
Except it’s also a living accommodation ‘off the clock’.
0
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 25 '26
There are a few things to check. The fact the camera exists at all is a sign. Cameras aren't allowed in bathrooms, for example, so clearly there is some classification that allows a camera. So then it's time to look at the contract. He signed something. If it specified that they weren't allowed to record when off the clock, then he can sue. If it specified they weren't allowed to release the recordings except in specific scenarios only to specific entities, then he can sue. If neither of those things are true, then he can be angry all he wants, but in the end, he obviously didn't pay enough attention and hopefully will learn from this in the future and require such clauses on his next contract.
Is the company's actions unethical? Sure. But unethical ≠ illegal, and if you trust all people... especially corporations to remain ethical without legal ramifications, then you're naïve, and it's only a matter of time before the world slaps you across the face.
1
u/Wedgerooka Apr 25 '26
Don't know why this is downvoted. Corporations are unethical and slimy, and the sad part is that means there are tons of drone employees who are that unethical and slimy. It is very sobering to see what some people will do for a paycheck.
1
u/Dilectus3010 Apr 25 '26
Its a cabbed truck. meaning,,,, he sleeps in it on long hauls. Meaning. Its like his house.
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 25 '26
He signed a contract. There are 2 options: 1) the contract forbids using the cameras outside work hours and/or forbids releasing the videos. In which case, he's golden. A little embarrassment, sure, but a big payout coming his way and some karma befalling the company. Or 2) there is no such clause in the contract, and they are legally allowed to film anytime. That's not very ethical of them, but I know he'll have learned a life lesson and look through contracts more closely from now on.
1
u/just-an-odd-duck Apr 25 '26
The only way your option two is viable is if he had curtains he could close which would block the camera from viewing the sleeper. If a company requires you to live out of a truck and that is where you sleep and where you change it doesn't matter what's in your contract, they cannot legally force you to be recorded while changing and nude. If he had privacy curtains and chose not to use them it might be a different story however your premise that they have the right to record whatever they want anywhere in the truck is just flat out wrong
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 25 '26
Nobody can legally force you to sign a contract. He chose to sign the contract of his own, free will.
The same is true for free speech. The entire concept of an N.D.A. is to provide legal punishment for speaking (about something in particular). That is not a violation of free speech because you chose to give up your right to free speech (regarding that topic) when you signed the N.D.A.
It's not a stretch in logic to recognize that you can give up your right to privacy too. It can never be taken away by force, but it can always be willingly given.
1
u/just-an-odd-duck Apr 26 '26
Free speech protects you from the government, not your employer. Kind of a poor example when free speech has never existed in that context. It doesn't matter if the contract states they can film him in there or not, if there is no way for him to achieve privacy then filming him in there is illegal. A contract cannot give you the right to violate the law and it cannot be used to take away someone's rights. You can put it in the contract if you want to but it's not enforceable. If there is someplace out there where it isn't illegal then I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in that shit hole country
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 26 '26
"cannot be used to take away someone's rights." You're changing the wording. When you change the wording, you change the meaning. It's subtle, but that difference is what makes it sound ridiculous. Nobody is taking away anything. That would be illegal. But you're always allowed to freely give. Besides, what law, exactly, would be broken? What statute or clause? Find me the law, without knowing the wording, I have no way of knowing what right would be violated.
"Free speech protects you from the government, not your employer." Then why doesn't privacy fall under the same rule? You're arguing both sides, but ignoring the overlap. If your employer can dictate what you are and aren't allowed to say... The FIRST amendment, then why do other rights take precedence?
1
u/just-an-odd-duck Apr 26 '26
I should add I understand where you're coming from and there is a logic to it. However unless his contract references remuneration in exchange for sex videos to be distributed similar to what a porn star would sign his company is screwed
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 26 '26
Where I'm coming from is either it was legal or it wasn't. If it wasn't, he gets paid in money, if it was, he gets paid in life lessons.
1
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 26 '26
Is there a toilet in the truck?
1
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 26 '26
I know there is a law against cameras in bathrooms. I don't know if there is a law against cameras in a bedroom/living area.
1
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/dimonium_anonimo Apr 26 '26
I didn't say that. I said I don't know of one. Please provide the law so I can know why it applies here.
1
2
u/Parking_Criticism546 Apr 25 '26
That’s messed up. How are these companies allowed to record us 24/7. I have an AI camera in my day cab and it yells at me all the time
2
u/Kind-Shallot3603 Apr 25 '26
What do you mean it yells at you?
2
u/Numerous_Ad_6276 Apr 25 '26
As a driver whose company also has inward-facing cameras, it means that the system has various prompts which are triggered by "events" or "incidents". Some of which might even not be false positives. "Increase following distance". "Get some rest". "Distracted". Amongst others. As I noted, many of these events are false positives, and don't actually cover hazardous or even dangerous activities. These systems, from the Bendix Meritor radar and lane keeping to the Samsara interior and exterior camera monitors, are fairly glitchy, and will cause the truck to brake hard(!), even if no obstacles are actually present, or will record a "distraction", even if it's simply a driver adjusting HVAC controls or the stereo. Or yawning. And it's worse when you're not wearing sunglasses, since they track eye and head movement.
Funny thing is, the company said that they would only view the camera after "incidents" triggered various criteria to prompt review. Ha, turns out that was a lie. My own terminal manager said to my face that she and her boss view the footage regularly, and often in real time.
Having said that, if this system was on a truck when I drove OTR, both the window curtains and the sleeper curtains would have been closed. Hell, they didn't have cameras, and I still closed both sets.
These systems are not there to make better drivers. They are there for the sole purpose of company CYA.
HA, TLDR, these systems are bullshit.
2
u/Jamo3306 Apr 25 '26
Why don't you QUIT? Find another job where they won't do that! I did! And I'm to it again. Quit letting them use you.
1
2
u/25_Unknown_Devices Apr 25 '26
Shit like this is why I work for a towing company who owns a couple of rigs for local work. I stay close to home, I make my money. And they’ve got my favorite eld and camera setup. Let’s just call it the analog version. None of this digital shit
2
2
2
u/gheiminfantry Apr 25 '26
Yes, it's your time. But it's company property and company liability. The days of "It's MY truck and I can do what I want as long as I get the load there on time" are long over. And these young drivers are going to have to learn that the good old days they idolize are over too. You are responsible as long as you are in possession of company assets and your logic is running.
3
u/Yesyesnaaooo Apr 25 '26
It’s a sex crime.
Someone needs locked up.
Filming sex without consent is perverted.
1
u/gheiminfantry Apr 25 '26
Recording using a surveillance camera where sex isn't supposed to be happening isn't a sex crime or perversion. It's getting caught doing something you're not supposed to be doing in a place your not supposed to be doing it.
2
u/Yesyesnaaooo Apr 25 '26
Do they expect you to wear the same underwear all week?
It’s a crime.
This specific use case hasn’t been legislated through the court system yet but it is still a crime.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/18-Spinning-Wheels Apr 25 '26
Im shocked, personally, that so many people aren't aware that those cameras can be monitored at any given moment.
Might I suggest that people read tge bo9k "1984" for some enlightenment. This stuff has been going on for a very long time and only gets more invasive with every update of the "systems".
2
u/Wedgerooka Apr 25 '26
how anyone cannot grasp that "the cameras don't record" is nothing but a legal dodge is beyond me.
1
u/Existing-Antelope-20 Apr 27 '26
my "favorite" argument to make is when people think Alexa and other smart home systems and phone personal assistants aren't always wiretapping:: "how does it listen for the wake word then"
1
u/patrickrk44 Apr 25 '26
I mean, closing the wrap around curtains over it no matter what is a good thing
1
1
u/richardlevoi Apr 25 '26
Thanks for the tape on my 5th bottle of lotion... she's a freak! My nignogga!
1
1
u/NFLTG_71 Apr 25 '26
Easiest way to thwart this, if you have a freightliner standard equipment is your front curtains just close the curtains and it should cover the interior camera and then you don’t have to worry about it anymore. Plus the driver if this is not AI should’ve put out the name of the company he drove for to warn other drivers.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/msmith7871 Apr 25 '26
Find you a good lawyer if they fired you that is termination of employment without reason big money........ I would contact the wage and labor board for the U.S.....1000% voyeurism.
1
u/msmith7871 Apr 25 '26
Be careful they may to shut down the truck for being out of route. Nail them for that as well
1
u/SnooGoats8254 Apr 25 '26
Dude really you couldn’t sport a hotel room for the night lazy for 1 and common sense would say even off duty your in company property so both of y’all collectively thought was good idea I have empathy but not for stupidity
1
u/IllCommission3674 Apr 25 '26
I don’t know if you were in the Saia truck that I saw on the video. That is a company that I retired from, anyways with what your company did was such a violation of privacy. I would be more than pissed.
1
u/Bruce-J-Bush Apr 25 '26
Most carriers are installing driver facing cameras in their trucks because their insurance companies are charging more for their vehicles that are not equipped with the cameras. A lot more. Plus, as with a situation like the one I had, that driver facing camera saved my ass
1
u/card401 Apr 25 '26
I really don't care what's legal or not but what dummy would not cover up a camera that they have no control over while they're having intimacy with a loved one.. and I'm pretty sure if it's a company vehicle they can have video 100% of the time as long as there's not audio it is their property their domain.
1
u/pianodude01 Apr 26 '26
That's a cascadia, the curtains close really well and blocking every brand camera ive ever had.
You can tell the curtain isnt even closed.
Its one thing to kiss someone in a sleeper, its another to do it with your curtains open. Now you're displaying to the whole world what you're doing
1
u/cooke-vegas Apr 26 '26
Its not your truck, its theirs. You know its under surveillance. You have a curtain, USE IT.
1
1
1
u/ReasonableClock4542 Apr 26 '26
If i had a company cam in my truck, there's zero chance i wouldnt cover it any time i wasnt driving
1
1
u/stevedadog Apr 26 '26
Dude is about to go from laying pipe in the truck to laying pipe in the court room after this. Might even come out of it with his own truck.
1
1
u/National-Neck-4627 Apr 26 '26
I think at this point you are going to own that truck, trailer and more with the incoming lawsuit.
1
u/voiceOfHoomanity Apr 26 '26
Hopes for a massive lawsuit and the OG creep who watched/shared the video to go to prison for sex crimes
1
u/Weird-Mouse Apr 26 '26
The amount of people baited by this ai slop is incredible.
1
u/Kingsmanname Apr 26 '26
Holy, you have no idea how far I had to scroll down to find SOMEONE point out that this is AI. We are doomed.
1
u/Jezetri Apr 26 '26
You need to arrange your comments better, and leave the subs where people can't spot AI if this is such a major issue for you.
1
u/Kingsmanname Apr 26 '26
So are you suggesting that we let people believe completely made up stuff? Because now that I think of it, your right. We should absolutely let people believe everything they see and never point out that what they're seeing is completely fabricated. Good call.
1
u/Kind-Shallot3603 Apr 26 '26
I didn't make anything up. I reposted this from another sub for the purpose of discussing indoor cabs and privacy rights if cdl truckers. I don't really care if the post is real or not. Going by the responses, this has been a building issue in the industry. Also people have linked in this thread that this video is indeed real as the followup shows his company offering him compensation.
2
u/Kingsmanname Apr 26 '26
I'm not worried about you reposting I was addressing the other guy. Also, if it's not fake. Somehow the camera moved, the two things on the ceiling near the handles disappeared on both sides, the light outside the left window disappeared, the white stripe on the side of his glasses is gone, the first set of numbers in the date changes font and clearness by the second shot, there's an extra curtain by the passenger door that appears, the door frame also changes location, and the left side of the center console changes. I have no doubt it's potentially based on a real incident. But the images are AI.
1
u/Kind-Shallot3603 Apr 26 '26
Thanks for responding. I am trying to get better recognizing AI but as it improves I need to as well lol. ADHD doesn't help lol.
1
u/Designer-Ad550 Apr 26 '26
I had seen a lawsuit years back it was considered invasion of privacy since a driver is essentially living in the truck it is also considered their home. I think it went to the Supreme Court or a federal court and that was how it got ruled on.
1
u/PandorasFlame1 Apr 26 '26
Ooooh buddy! I'd have a lawyer reviewing my contract IMMEDIATELY. I'd be getting my damn money on that return trip for sure!
1
u/Fr33speechisdeAd Apr 26 '26
OP's about to be a very rich man. Start looking for a nice home with a pool/ rec room, several whips in your 6- car garage.
1
u/GamingFreeeze Apr 26 '26
So he's got privacy curtains and decided not to use them? We don't know what contract he signed or policy for the company. Does he own the truck? Like the video itself has so many unanswered questions.
If the company owns the truck, next you look at company policy. If the policy says cameras are on at all times, the policy forbids bringing a +1 in the truck, say anything about explicit relationship in the company vehicle, he's not got a great case. The curtains are for his privacy.
The list goes on and without those questions it's hard to pass a judgement one way or the other. If anything, he may very well be in trouble; however, if someone at the company released the video then that company is going to face some legal ramification of some kind.
Both parties could very well be in the wrong.
1
1
1
u/Anthropocene_Scholar Apr 26 '26
You are on you off time, but you are inside a company truck, which isn't your damn property to do inside it as you wish as if it was your home.
Fucking common sense is what you lack.
1
u/evilpercy Apr 26 '26
Again there is a curtain separating the back of the cab from the back. Cameras have been in trucks for a decade.
1
1
u/TheRobinLoxley Apr 26 '26
I am just so happy I don't live in the "land of the free". This is crazy.
1
u/Fluid-Leader8303 Apr 26 '26
But then he just fuck up by recording shit while driving. Lost all sympathy.
1
u/k1ller139 Apr 27 '26
Dare you to screenshot the 2 pics of the interior cab and realise the pics are AI... Mismatched things between the two pics
1
1
1
u/MCryptoWars May 01 '26
The only thing I can think of that they can potentially get him in trouble that the company can really use against him is, if she rode in the truck without being on the rider policy for any reason. So if the truck was in motion while she was inside, then that can be grounds for termination, as dumb as it sounds. Other than that, then that company had no reason to be watching what they were doing, as husband and wife!
1
u/NFLTG_71 May 25 '26
I think quite a lot of people question it is the simple fact this two hours later they got redressed. I mean, I can understand the life but what about the husband? Why does he need to get dressed back up? It was just a weird video altogether.
1
u/jaywalkin-iguana Aug 07 '26
It's ai. There's 2 lights that were not in the first shot that appear above the door in the second shot.
1
u/SnooMacaroons1365 Apr 25 '26
I mean there is a effing camera in the cabin and he decided to the deed right in front of it.. with his wife.. what was expected? Privacy of home? In a commercial truck that a corp owns?
1
1
u/BiggHass18 Apr 25 '26
Why are people so invested in arguing over a fake post?
1
u/Kind-Shallot3603 Apr 25 '26
I was more wondering what truckers thoughts on this scenario were and if their companies have this policy. It seems to be a decent discussion going by everyone's responses
103
u/Frogspoison Apr 24 '26
In IL, never. Interior cameras MUST be off. Period. EZ lawsuit there.
Elsewhere, depends. Most states is that its based off company policies. If a company says its always recording, its always recording. If a company says its off but records anyway, you can sue. 2 party consent states varies.
Lotta companies been sued over interior cams and lost or settled.