Vehicle Tracking Law

Every row is a verbatim sentence read from the named source's own page through our fetch service on the date shown, hash-pinned to the stored read (the sha of the page's visible text; the raw page is mirrored to R2).

2 of the 18 named sources that could be read published a usable figure; 16 published none and are recorded as not published, never filled in; 0 could not be read (blocked, dead or unreachable) and count nowhere.

The headline figures (median, minimum, maximum, quartiles) are over ONE figure per source for each breakdown it prices, in hour (a source's median where its page yielded several accepted sentences for one breakdown), so a page that gives figures for several breakdowns gives one for each and N counts 4 figures, never sentences; 90 candidate sentence(s) were refused by a reviewer with the reason recorded.

The fuller derivation this dataset is chartered to grow into (not yet what the figures above are; they are each source's own published figure as read): one row per jurisdiction per rule, quoted verbatim from the authority with its effective date: the offence that makes fitting a tracker to another person's vehicle unlawful, the consent or notice exception an employer relies on, whether the exception turns on OWNERSHIP of the vehicle (the company car) or on the worker's agreement (the private car used for work), the written-notice duty where one exists, and the penalty.

Across them, the comparison nobody publishes: which jurisdictions make employer tracking lawful by owner consent alone and which require notice to the driver as well; the count of US states with an electronic-tracking-device offence against those with an employee-notice statute; and changed-since, which is the news when a state adds a notice duty.

90 candidate sentences on these pages were refused by a reviewer; each refusal and its reason is recorded in the review ledger.