4 ms·
These also sound like the excuses you come up with to install cameras in every car when you can't say the real reason because of bad PR. This approach works re
by Closi 6y ago
These also sound like the excuses you come up with to install cameras in every car when you can't say the real reason because of bad PR.
This approach works really well, because you can just accuse people who are against your proposals as being 'against driver safety'.
It's similar to every other move in increasing surveillance in that you can come up with a 'PR-friendly' reason for the surveillance that people find tough to argue against to placate the masses. "Oh, you are wondering why we are spying on everyone... uhh... it's to protect the children! It's to protect the children! And terrorists! We need to stop the terorrists! And the people who are against these proposals? Well they must be people who are pedophile-enablers and terrorist sympathisers!"
- mewpmewp2 6y agoWhat's the real reason to install those cameras in the car?
- EarlKing 6y agoShrinkage. They're trying to point the finger at who's losing their packages. If some sorter scans a package and their tracking system says its in a certain tote number they're going to assume its there even when, in point of fact, it's not. So when a driver reports a package missing... they want to know he didn't just shove it in his bag. Note that this is readily solvable by having DSP and Amazon Logistics drivers do what Amazon Flex drivers already do: scan every single package individually. If a package comes up missing then flag an Amazon rep to inspect the bag its supposed to be in, verify its missing, snap a quick pic of the tracking#, and then they can take it off your route while they try to find it (and ultimately wind up marking it missing later). That, of course, would mean drivers take more time loading... so of course they'll never do that. They'll just install cameras.