In reply to N Sperlo:
I think your missing the part where it said "unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication". I don't know how that would apply here (as the OP isn't in the car converting), but I also think that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a customers car. After all, he owns the car, and the Event Data Recorder, and one look at that telemetry will kill the dealer quick.
Javelin wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: I think your missing the part where it said "unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication". I don't know how that would apply here (as the OP isn't in the car converting), but I also think that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a customers car. After all, he owns the car, and the Event Data Recorder, and one look at that telemetry will kill the dealer *quick*.
Since the OP isn't in the car, he isn't involved in the conversation. The reasonable expectation of privacy is lost when speaking publicly. The fact that the two employees are in a private conversation should kill the issue straight off the line. You have a reasonable expectation to privacy when you think no one [else] is listening.
We could banter for hours regarding the reading of laws, but until a court would decide, were treading water.
Going to bed. Goodnight, Javelin. Just worked 16 and will probably work 16 tomorrow starting at 6, 
Even if it is illegal, would the dealership or Chevrolet seek prosecution? If so, it would explode on the news circuit. Whose side would other consumers take? I doubt that many would say, "Gee, I'm glad that the service porters have the right to abuse my most expensive asset aside from my house and get away with it."
Should you expect privacy when you're in someone elses private property? Those guys are a bunch of clowns that give the rest of us a bad name.
We wring out customer's cars pretty hard at work but we're certainly not doing donuts and roasting the clutch.
A customer's '57 fuelie Corvette blew up on the test drive at the shop. Bad. Like broken rod bad.
The car was a fresh buy from Barrett-Jackson.
We'd look awful stupid if we babied the car and it did that to the customer, fresh from our shop.
It's a high-performance car, if you don't drive it the same way the customer does, you're not going to find the problems.
I'm not saying they should've rat-bagged the guys car but I would expect them to work it hard.
I had a customer's '57 Thunderbird out and the throttle jammed wide-open on me. Good thing I did that because I doubt the owner would have the presence of mind to shut it off instead of trying to stop it with the brakes.
The throttle didn't hang up in the shop, only when the engine torqued over on the mounts.
Shawn
If driving a car in anger is part of the evaluation process, perhaps the dealer should explain the testing methods used and the reasoning behind their methodology. Do dealers document every mile that is added to the odometer? If not, why not? Is the testing procedure laid out in plain English?
It's more of the "I'll get paid to replace the clutch and then paid to replace the pressure plate" shenanigans that GM will be interested in.
And I still don't think you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else's property, but I'm no lawyer (or judge).
Javelin wrote: It's more of the "I'll get paid to replace the clutch and then paid to replace the pressure plate" shenanigans that GM will be interested in.
If that doesn't trigger a warranty audit then nothing will. I predict openings for a fixed operations and service manager very soon, possibly a parts manager as well. The tech and service advisor are probably already in the unemployment line.
Javelin wrote: And I still don't think you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else's property, but I'm no lawyer (or judge).
I agree with you. Particularly when the law is being broken or fraud is occuring in my property.
Mitchell wrote: If driving a car in anger is part of the evaluation process, perhaps the dealer should explain the testing methods used and the reasoning behind their methodology. Do dealers document every mile that is added to the odometer? If not, why not? Is the testing procedure laid out in plain English?
Reynolds and Reynolds has a 'miles out' box which must be completed before a repair order can be invoiced. That's the legal documentation of the test mileage.
As for the test drive procedure, no there's not a set procedure. But as I mentioned, the rule is you do NOT wail on a customer's car. Even if they demand it. Nope. The customer will have to wail on it and break it, then bring it in on the hook.
The big reason for that is the insurance companies freak at the idea of a service tech with a bunch of tickets or a DUI etc driving a customer's car. If a tech gets a traffic ticket while driving a customer's car that is probably the worst possible scenario. it's possible for an insurance carrier to drop a dealership if something like that happens. Just like with an individual, if you lose your coverage then everybody you apply to is going to jack your rates out of sight.
That happened a few years ago at a dealership near where I worked; a salesman on a test drive took an Interstate exit way too fast with a customer and his wife in the car. The car (an Explorer) rolled. The insurance company waited till the dust settled then dropped the dealership.
If a tech gets a traffic ticket while driving a customer's car that is probably the worst possible scenario. it's possible for an insurance carrier to drop a dealership if something like that happens.
How would they know that?
In reply to Zomby Woof:
Because every six months the insurance company will do a drivers' license audit. If they run a DL # and a ticket pops up, they will investigate. It doesn't even have to happen in a company or customer vehicle; I had one tech with 4 tickets, all of which happened off the property and in his own cars, who had his test drive priviliges suspended until he completed a 'points reduction' class. Around here, tickets are assigned a point value, generally 2, 4 or 6 points depending on the severity of the offense. IIRC 15 points is an automatic 1 year license suspension.
Curmudgeon wrote:Javelin wrote: It's more of the "I'll get paid to replace the clutch and then paid to replace the pressure plate" shenanigans that GM will be interested in.If that doesn't trigger a warranty audit then nothing will. I predict openings for a fixed operations and service manager very soon, possibly a parts manager as well. The tech and service advisor are probably already in the unemployment line.
But the sad part is that you have to do that in order to make end's meet. I know the factory doesn't really want to pay warranty times as they should, like Chrysler doing the time study on, let's say an engine replacement, and stops the timer while the tech goes to find a different socket or wrench or needs to hook up the special service tool to raise the engine out of the car and the list can go on and on and on.
A tech's pen is his/her greatest ally in getting paid, legally or illegally.
Ranger50 wrote:Curmudgeon wrote:But the sad part is that you have to do that in order to make end's meet. I know the factory doesn't really want to pay warranty times as they should, like Chrysler doing the time study on, let's say an engine replacement, and stops the timer while the tech goes to find a different socket or wrench or needs to hook up the special service tool to raise the engine out of the car and the list can go on and on and on. A tech's pen is his/her greatest ally in getting paid, legally or illegally.Javelin wrote: It's more of the "I'll get paid to replace the clutch and then paid to replace the pressure plate" shenanigans that GM will be interested in.If that doesn't trigger a warranty audit then nothing will. I predict openings for a fixed operations and service manager very soon, possibly a parts manager as well. The tech and service advisor are probably already in the unemployment line.
I'm very well aware of the pen being mightier than the wrench.
No you do not have to double dip a repair like that. If I ever catch someone filing a fraudulent warranty claim, regardless of how tightassed the manufacturer is, they will be in the street IMMEDIATELY.
Curmudgeon wrote:Javelin wrote: And I still don't think you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else's property, but I'm no lawyer (or judge).I agree with you. Particularly when the law is being broken or fraud is occuring in my property.
Javelin, I'm not trying to convince you, I've actually got better things to trip on today. Also, I really don't care enough.
What gets me is the bold section. There's a double-standard. Is it legal to record someone else's conversation? No. Are you the only person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property or in your home? I would find that unlikely in the case of anyone you have permitted access weather it be your brother, me, or a E36 M3ty mechanic. Now prove to me how committing a crime has anything to do [with that] without destroying someone's rights.
I'm not fighting for the douchebag, but for the law that so many fight to protect. Unless they lose.
In reply to N Sperlo:
I'm not arguing with you, so I'm not sure why you would try and convince me of anything. What we feel has zero bearing on this actual case. What I'm trying to understand is where does that line exist in our legal reality? Does a plumber invited into your home to fix a leaky pipe have an expectation of privacy? How is the car any different? That's why I stated my opinion was where it was at, but regardless, I don't know how the law is applied in SC, which is what matters for the Camaro owner. (Also, see my earlier comments on event data recorders)
In reply to Javelin:
I'm just emphasising that this is a discussion and I'm not trying to change your mind, but merely pick it. I looked up the law you quoted. The reference pointed only to the definition of an electronic recording device which proceeded the laws four when it is OK to record someone, preceded what is illegal, and I quoted that [which is illegal].
The written law had expressively stated that something said in public pace such as a meeting or public event would be a situation in which one does not expect privacy. I can therefore presume when I hold a private conversation with someone in a private place, regardless of who's place that is, I can expect privacy.
I may be nuts, but I enjoy reading and understanding laws.I also enjoy understanding how others may read them differently.
N Sperlo wrote:Curmudgeon wrote:Javelin, I'm not trying to convince you, I've actually got better things to trip on today. Also, I really don't care enough. What gets me is the bold section. There's a double-standard. Is it legal to record someone else's conversation? No. Are you the only person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property or in your home? I would find that unlikely in the case of anyone you have permitted access weather it be your brother, me, or a E36 M3ty mechanic. Now prove to me how committing a crime has anything to do [with that] without destroying someone's rights. I'm not fighting for the douchebag, but for the law that so many fight to protect. Unless they lose.Javelin wrote: And I still don't think you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else's property, but I'm no lawyer (or judge).I agree with you. Particularly when the law is being broken or fraud is occuring in my property.
Here's my take: if something illegal or wrong is happening with/to my property or family, then damn right I can record it. Witness all the 'nanny cams', the recent brouhaha about the guy in Jersey who wired his autistic kid and caught the teachers treating him like shi+, I could go on for a while.
It's already established law that a vehicle is treated much like a person's home, i.e. the police must ask permission before searching. If that permission is not granted, then a search warrant must be obtained. (Yeah, I know there are certain circumstances where this can be circumvented, but bear with me.) So that means, just like my home, I have a perfect right to record what's going on in there EVEN IF I AM NOT IN IT. That's how all those YouTube vids of people breaking into houses are obtained; the homeowner set a DVR to record WHEN THEY WERE NOT HOME.
Someone who is inside another's home or car has already knowingly given up a certain amount of the right to privacy (that's what repair orders are for, a legal record of what was done with another's property. That means the tech has NO privacy). If they do not like it, they are free to leave.
To draw out your analogy though, you record someone taking a E36 M3 in your bathroom?
I agree with you wholeheartedly in logical principle, but there are exceptions to your idea as well. I don't think I give up my right to privacy in another person's bathroom. In another person's car? berkeley yeah.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
I love that vehicles are treated liked homes now. In Missouri it is called castle law.
Each case you mentioned includes consent of one party. Nanny Cam: consent by children (audio may not be permissible without a consenting party involved). The kid with the tape on him. He's a consenting party. These are loopholes in the law.
When breaking into property, you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy because you are not to supposed to be there. I tried covering that in my last post. note me stating permission was granted. you even quoted that.
The tech is giving up some privacy, but unless specifically stated somewhere that they lose all rights to privacy, they don't.
You can throw scenarios at me all night (in fact I would enjoy that), but it will all come down to one solid issue. Our right to privacy is so protected and important because it is part of our right to freedom. Unless you specifically give part of that right up, you still have it. This makes privacy laws one of the hardest to deal with even for law enforcement, be it security or the secret service.
It's a razor's edge. If I scrape the silver off a mirror in one of my bathrooms, put in a minicam and record someone peeing, then I may have a problem particularly if I post it for the world to see. But if using that same setup I record someone shooting heroin in my bathroom, now things change. I am responsible for everything that goes on under my roof; that's the flip side of the old English 'castle doctrine' law meaning if I condone that activity I can go to jail. So where does the line get drawn?
Curmudgeon wrote: It's a razor's edge. If I scrape the silver off a mirror in one of my bathrooms, put in a minicam and record someone peeing, then I may have a problem particularly if I post it for the world to see. But if using that same setup I record someone shooting heroin in my bathroom, now things change. I am responsible for everything that goes on under my roof; that's the flip side of the old English 'castle doctrine' law meaning if I condone that activity I can go to jail. So where does the line get drawn?
We were talking oral communication, now video. we would have to find the law regarding that. I do see legal issues even when recording someone committing a crime (using drugs) when they don't know they are being recorded, but again, we have moved outside the box of oral communication.
Keep in mind, we're discussing topics that the highest courts make the final decisions regarding [that specific action's] legality.
Legality of this situation is a little more complicated than is being made out. Question may boil down to "reasonable expectation of privacy". Is it reasonable to expect privacy when driving someone else's car? Is it reasonable to have surveillance set up in your own car?
If you're walking down the street, I can videotape you, even if you tell me to stop. If you're in your yard, and I'm on a public street observing what you're doing, I can tape it. I don't need your consent.
I suspect a jury would be very sympathetic to the car owner. If I set up security cameras in my front yard to keep E36 M3 heads from steeling my damn wheels again, will they sue me? Fat chance.
Every notice how often paparazzi get away with what many consider invasion of privacy? Loads and loads of pictures of people in cars. Seems to be a good load of precedent that says you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car.
Eddie... I think we have been chasing each other in circles around issue A (keep in mind this is ONLY in regard to private oral communication), and covered that issue B is legal.
On second thought... I'm not getting into this. Have fun being an expert.
I'm an expert because I'm trying to discuss this and keep it on point? I'm sorry. I enjoy a legal discussion and am enjoying the back and fourth of this. It's challenging me to think and understand others. I've been working 15 hours. This is my second 16 hour day. This discussion is helping me stay awake so I can drive home. Keep it coming, but if we're discussing a specific issue, lets not divert to a wider and more complicated issue. This is complicated enough.
Sorry. Didn't mean to sound like a dick.
Honestly, enjoy the discussion. I know just enough about it to be dangerous. If faced with the situation professionally I'd just call the lawyers.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure the recording is legal. Do you have some limited expectation of privacy in your car? Probably. If I set up a recording device in your car and didn't tell you about it I'm probably on shaky legal ground. If I put it in my car? I'd be shocked if you could claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.
You'll need to log in to post.
