Always watch what you do and say....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bE4Dh_82kMM

Too bad he didn't have a hidden camera.

Wow.

Haha, I might need to go by there the next time I head to Clemson.

PR nightmare. I bet he would have kept quiet had they made things right.

Seeing as you can't tell who was in the car saying those things or doing the driving... He's got no case.

In reply to racerfink:

But I think that he could make enough noise about it that the dealership would be motivated to settle it quickly and quietly.

Those are shop monkeys, everybody can recognize voices.

Recording a conversion without being involved and/or not informing the party is a felony. I understand these guys were being jackasses, but its a major offense.

Edit: State law may differ.

In reply to N Sperlo:

Both parties to blame here, sperlo pointed out why there isn't a case......the recording cannot be used as "evidence" without the car owner admitting guilt.....

N Sperlo wrote: Recording a conversion without being involved and/or not informing the party is a felony. I understand these guys were being jackasses, but its a major offense. Edit: State law may differ.

South Carolina Law said: S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-30-20, 17-30-30: It is a felony to intercept, disclose or use a wire, electronic or oral communication, unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication. Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-15.

Looks like the car owner is a-okay according to the state law in his state...

racerfink wrote: Seeing as you can't tell who was in the car saying those things or doing the driving... He's got no case.

The court of public opinion might matter though.....

Ranger50 wrote:

racerfink wrote: Seeing as you can't tell who was in the car saying those things or doing the driving... He's got no case.

The court of public opinion might matter though.....

Time stamps are a bitch I hear. Sounds like a digital recorder. This is pretty slam-dunk it sounds like.

Sorry to say, but I've done bad things in customer's cars....more than once. But, the only thing me hooning cost was a few months of life of a set of tires or brake pads.

Here is the phone number. I am tempted to ask them if they can test drive and diagnose my car. Ask if they charge extra for complete abuse and damage? I would live to hear their answer. LOL. I am sure that everyone in the dealership knows this is online.

Sales: 864.640.4398 Service & Parts: 864.385.7000

When I'm troublshooting my own car I drive the crap out of it. Problem parts fail faster that way.

Were they hard on it? Yep. Am i surprised? Nope. If it was mine and I took It to a shop, I'd kind of expect it.

That's why I usually fix my own crap.

I drive customer's cars easier than I drive my own. I expect the techs to do the same. We get plenty of Hemi Challengers and Chargers in our place along with some SRT8's and it is well known that if you get caught dogging out a customer's car, you are fired immediately. No second chances.

If the customer insists 'it' only happens during hard driving or at speeds above the posted limit, well sorry we do not test drive under those conditions.

Javelin wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Recording a conversion without being involved and/or not informing the party is a felony. I understand these guys were being jackasses, but its a major offense. Edit: State law may differ.

South Carolina Law said: S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-30-20, 17-30-30: It is a felony to intercept, disclose or use a wire, electronic or oral communication, unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication. Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-15.

Looks like the car owner is a-okay according to the state law in his state...

Where is this from? It appears to contradict itself, unless it has been amended for clarity. The first section suggest is illegal to intercept electronic or oral communications. I presume the state supreme court had deemed "oral communication" is defined as having no reasonable expectation of privacy. If that is the case, the original written law is redundant, which would not surprise me.

I'll have took look this one up, because unless the law specifically says they don't by talking, that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Looking up S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-15. Now.

Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking.

I wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car that belongs to someone else.

Sorry for posting and deleting. Its tough on an android....

Here are two relevant parts. I'm not justifying by any means what the employees did. I'm just trying to clarify law. Its what I do.

Anyway:

(2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication. (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

SECTION 17-30-20. Prohibited acts. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided in Section 17-30-50 of this chapter: (1) intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

Going on this, I would presume this cannot be used in court and the posting party may be taking a serious risk posting it on youtube. By the conversion being private, it is protected by law.

Just the way I read it. I'm no judge or lawyer.

N Sperlo wrote: I'll have took look this one up, because unless the law specifically says they don't by talking, that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

'Reasonable expectation of privacy' is one of those things defined by precedent, and it probably doesn't mean what any normal person would think it would mean. Just because you're lawfully on someone else's property doesn't give them the right to record you without your consent.

Remember the guy who got arrested and charged with wiretapping because he video'd a traffic stop with the GoPro mounted on his helmet? The claim there was that the officer conducting a traffic stop on the side of a public freeway had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (that state required both parties to consent). I think the case was thrown out, but I suspect more because of public outrage than reasonable interpretations of the word "reasonable".

Big brothers double standard strikes again there. The police record every stop, heck the local pd has cameras running for the entire shift. Yet we are not allowed to do the same when we are stopped.

Spinout007 wrote: Big brothers double standard strikes again there. The police record every stop, heck the local pd has cameras running for the entire shift. Yet we are not allowed to do the same when we are stopped.

Thats a state thing. I'm about to order a dash cam, but for a completely different reason. Its legal to record as long as one party knows.

And yes, codrus, thats where I was headed. The fact that they were in someone else's car does not mean they should not expect privacy.

As for police running dash cams, during a traffic stop, you are presumably not allowed to leave, so are being detained for investigation or being arrested (that includes being ticketed), so you would therefore lose your expectation of privacy.

This is all my speculation of how the laws technically would read.