[binand]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

IMO this is a breach of privacy and there is no legal backing for this.

I don't understand what the breach of privacy in this is. If you are sentenced by a court of law, it is a matter of public record. Where is the privacy argument coming in then?

[anumod]

Originally Posted by am1m

I won't be surprised if most companies decide that they won't be taking any action. It's a law enforcement issue, let law enforcement deal with it. As long as the employee was not drunk in the office or while on official work, they don't have much of a say. A company/business can't be expected to teach behavior that should have been taught by family and the education system. For those incidents, we have a police force and the courts.

This is not for pushing companies to take an action. But as the letter correctly says, to sensitize the issue among the companies and letting them know that their employees are also involved in this. With that data point, employers can sensitize this issue among all the employees

[avisidhu]

Originally Posted by srishiva

.......
Police should do what their job is and leave the counselling and other motives behind. Why dont they just pursue what is there in law strictly? Hope they really do this.

I can safely contrast Chandigarh with Hyderabad, where police are at every nook and corner and midnight checks are now a norm. No sane person risks drunk driving in Chd nowadays because probability of getting caught is quite high. And so enforcement alone works.

The problem stems from lack of enough police force to effectively monitor all such cases in cities like Hyd, where one's chances of being caught when drunk are abysmally low.

Hence, if the cops truly intend to ensure that anyone who drinks does not drive, then the only way is to make the cost prohibitive enough. It's just a logical conclusion the Police force has reached based on the harsh reality of their limited capabilities, and thus devising methods accordingly.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Thilak29

A clear case of data privacy principles thrown out of the window. Who should know what - is so unclear in this country.

Originally Posted by the_skyliner

That is a bigger breach of law than informing the employer. They have no right to know who a person works for. In fact, they have no right to ask what a person does for living.

Originally Posted by NiInJa

The Police have no business telling my employer what I do outside of office. If it were me, I would actually reply to this letter asking what is the legal bearing of this and why should the office (my employer) do anything about it as long as it is not affecting their business.

A very large proportion of Team BHP members are, it seems, from the IT world where they either work for MNCs or have spent long spells in the West on work assignments and hence understandably absorb these western concepts of 'privacy' being all sacrosanct. If you are doing something that is known to be a real danger to life and limb then don't hide behind privacy. Fortunately Indian courts adopt a more practical view of such things as needed in our context of poor law abiding especially on road traffic matters. Kudos to the Hyderabad Police for this initiate as well as the Mumbai and Chandigarh Police forces. Only the danda works in our country. In addition to this I would vote for six lashes of the rattan cane as is done in Singapore for some offences.

What next - will my HR know if I missed making my card payment on time?

There is a world of a difference between default on debt and being a risk to life and limb.

[Arjun Reddy]

Good Job Hyderabad Police. This is like taking it one level higher than telling the wife.:

I rather there is s deterrent like this than some joker trying to be a superman after 5 drinks.

When lives are at stake nothing else matters.

There is no privacy breach here. Once you are given a ticket for even a No Parking, it becomes available on the public domain. Bangalore Traffic Police has a website for traffic fines. It just needs a vehicle number and all the offences can be seen.

Also I do not think that the HR of any company will publicly announce the name of the employee. It is more likely be taken one on one and the general do not drink and drive message sent out to all.

Our attitude of , do not mind if you see my No parking ticket( I have seen a lot of people bragging that they parked in a ₹ 100 parking slot : but you should not know that I was drunk and driving should be erased.

If some drunk employee were to have an accident and kill/injure someone on the road, would the employer not know about it ?

DUI is a criminal offence and attracts a jail term of 6 months.

In the days of the Uber, Ola and DriveU, it is so convenient to ride back home, why on earth people risk it?

[Jaggu]

Privacy laws are almost non existent in practice here in India! Public shaming is the term, and it needs to be used very judiciously if you ask me. Yes drunken drive is a crime, but I don't think someone who has been caught once for drunken drive, and already penalised by the court system needs OR deserve this kind of treatment. Whoever is the source of this leak, has made a gross violation of privacy laws and should be given a stern warning.

The matter being communicated by the cops to the company, is a private and confidential matter between the two parties. And the action to be taken (if any), is sole discretion of the company, based on its own code of conduct for employees.

Will such acts result in curbing this offence? I am not very sure, like many have mentioned there are much more progressive way of dealing with such matters. Public shaming often screws up peoples life and leaves very little positive impact on the society in the long run.

[R2D2]

IMO, a harsh deterrent is required if vehicle drivers do not comply with the law. Privacy of that irresponsible moron who drives after consuming alcohol is immaterial! Who can imagine the thought of loved ones or friends being injured or, God forbid, killed?! Privacy can and should be compromised on when multiple lives are at stake. The higher the stakes the higher the compliance in this country. Laaton ke bhoot baaton se nahin maante. Sadly, that's just the way how a large majority of Indian drivers are.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by GTO

In Mumbai, drunk driving has gone down by over 75% since the cops started cracking down hard and putting drivers behind bars. .

Originally Posted by Mu009

Well, I'm with Benjamin Franklin on this one - "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Those are impressive numbers/improvements. Even so, what would happen if the cops start slacking up? Will the number of DUI an accidents go up again.

There is a huge difference between people not doing something because it is forbidden by law and you have a high chance of getting caught with heavy consequence. Or not doing something because you simply believe you should not drive a car when you have had a few.

To me these are two very different solutions.

We started probably a couple of decades with a similar approach. High visibility and lots of police attention, time and dedication was given. In addition the "do not drink when you need to drive"' campaign has been running for the better part of two decades now. It's ingrained in the educational/social/culture aspect of living in the Netherlands.

Many bars/café will offer the so called Bob (whoever is going to stay sober, free soft drinks during the whole evening).

Very few people in the Netherlands drink whilst driving. Not because it is forbidden by law (it has been for decades), not because they are likely to get caught (because these days the chances are very small), or because the penalties/fines are pretty tough, but because general public consensus is you just do not drink when you need to drive.

We have not been able to eradicate drink/driving completely. The "do not drink whilst driving" campaigns will still continue and evolve over the years to come.

Whilst on a topic like this, it is easy to take a whatever it takes approach to get the problem solved, you might want to consider this:

Do you want people to comply with laws because they are afraid of getting caught? Or would you rather they comply because they have an intrinsic value/outlook in life which ensures they do not engage in drinking/driving.

I do not think the first leads to the second automatically. But I have been wrong before.

Jeroen

[vnabhi]

I fully support the Hyderabad police on this. i work from 3.30 pm to 12:30 am, and have seen several maniacs driving like crazy on the stretch from Jubilee Hills Check Post towards Panjagutta--mostly on high-end bikes and super cars. This is the reason I leave for home around 11 pm, just to avoid those morons. Those spoiled brats have rich dads who can bail them out in most cases.

Those incidents can be checked only by DUI checks, and measures like this. While on this topic, my pal's wife, who's a reporter in The Hindu, wrote an article way back in 2003 that the road from Nagarjuna Circle towards LV Prasad needs a divider, and that would deter super car owners from racing and intimidating other drivers. The cops responded quickly and got that implemented. Though i was disappointed (I did not have a super car though), I reconciled because it was for the larger good of society.

[hserus]

Originally Posted by binand

I don't understand what the breach of privacy in this is. If you are sentenced by a court of law, it is a matter of public record. Where is the privacy argument coming in then?

I agree. Court proceedings are a matter of public record unless the presiding judge bars publication.

So you can get your name in the local paper for being jailed for DUI just as much as you can by for example winning a local tennis tournament, or the Nobel Prize for that matter. There can be no expectation of privacy in such cases.

As others have said, most IT / ITES employers mandate disclosure of any arrests let alone jail sentences passed on an employee in the employment contract itself - this has a direct impact on visa issuance for instance besides the negative PR caused to the company if some paper mentions the guy's employer name instead of something generic like "A MNC software company in Gachibowli"

[naveenroy]

I read through mostly all the posts.

My thought - does this breach of privacy save lives? I think so. Or at least it puts the fear of losing paychecks in potential drunk drivers. I hate drunk drivers. They are nothing but licensed killers. Any means to keep them off the road.

Also, my other point - when it becomes a criminal case (which I assume drunk driving is), why is it a private matter when you can easily locate the case in court?

[landcruiser123]

Agree with GTO on this. Anything to get drunk drivers off the road is welcome.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

History around the world has shown that (alcohol ) related issues are rarely solved by punishment, prohibition or .....

I echo this. Education is important but the children you educate today are going to drive 5-15 years later. And there are always old people driving and they can't be re-educated.

Strict punishments are deterrents for the short-term solution (now to ~20 years) and education is a long term solution for the 25 year to forever. We need both to eradicate the problem. India's literacy rate compounds the problem.

[bigben]

Originally Posted by avisidhu

I can safely contrast Chandigarh with Hyderabad, where police are at every nook and corner and midnight checks are now a norm. No sane person risks drunk driving in Chd nowadays because probability of getting caught is quite high. And so enforcement alone works.

The problem stems from lack of enough police force to effectively monitor all such cases in cities like Hyd, where one's chances of being caught when drunk are abysmally low.

Hence, if the cops truly intend to ensure that anyone who drinks does not drive, then the only way is to make the cost prohibitive enough. It's just a logical conclusion the Police force has reached based on the harsh reality of their limited capabilities, and thus devising methods accordingly.

I would disagree here. You can be sure on the weekends there will be a cops checking for drunken driving. While they have their routine or fixed places where they set up barricades, they will definitely out. I know for a fact because when I go out on the weekend, the cab driver is always stopped by the cops.

I agree that during the day they are not to be seen, but weekends and especially at night, they will be around.

[anumod]

Originally Posted by bigben

I agree that during the day they are not to be seen, but weekends and especially at night, they will be around.

It is not just on Weekends. Every police station has to do two days a week for sure, some inspectors do more than that too. One has to be either Friday or Saturday. So you might be noticing only on weekends.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Whoever is the source of this leak, has made a gross violation of privacy laws and should be given a stern warning.

The "leak" (as visible in the first post in the thread) has PII redacted. How can privacy be violated then? In any case, whose privacy was violated by just restating matters that are part of public record (even the existence of this letter is)?

Originally Posted by Jaggu

The matter being communicated by the cops to the company, is a private and confidential matter between the two parties.

Which two parties? The cops and the company? Where is the expectation of confidentiality in the letter? If the DyCP writing the letter wants it to be treated as confidential, he has to mark it as such and provide reasons for doing so. I don't think any reason other than the ones mentioned in the RTI Act would fly.

Also if you read the letter - it only (a) in para 1, mentioned matters that are part of public record, and (b) reiteration of the law and obligations in paras 2-3. It is hard to see how anyone can claim all this is confidential information.

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Will such acts result in curbing this offence? I am not very sure

This is the pertinent question. I have been reading about naming-and-shaming schemes, and what I have been able to make out so far is that:

1. It works at a small scale (say a few hundred letters a month). At large scale, the behaviour for which one is shamed becomes the norm and then shaming doesn't work.
2. Justice system has a bigger obligation of deterrence than recidivism. This move could help in the former while doing nothing about the latter.
3. Such schemes could be challenged under libel laws. Depending on the jurisdiction, these might be fruitful.