
Man raises privacy concerns after car dealership employee turns off his dashcams - corny
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-man-raises-privacy-concerns-after-car-dealership-employee-turns-off-his-dashcams-twice-1.4973924
======
user982
There have been a number of headlines resulting from dashcams catching
mechanics joyriding or otherwise abusing cars after they have been dropped
off. Here is an example (also from Canada) that went viral last year:
[https://jalopnik.com/canadian-mercedes-dealership-caught-
on-...](https://jalopnik.com/canadian-mercedes-dealership-caught-on-dashcam-
taking-c-1825054515)

------
mc32
This isn’t a privacy concern, it’s rather a trust concern. He may not trust
the mechanics. On the other hand, I can see the mechanics having a privacy
concern, unless he made them sign some legalise along the lines of allowing
him to record them while they serviced the vehicle.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Typically the batteries on these devices don't last very long unless it's
hooked to the car battery. There's zero reason for the mechanic to go through
the property of a client. I'd sue the hell out of that company for doing that.
It would be similar to an employee at a computer store going through your
computer looking for racy photos. That's not their job. Disconnecting the
camera would make me never bring my car to that place again as I wouldn't
trust the mechanic.

~~~
cortesoft
Not sure where you work, but would you be ok if your employer wanted to hook
up a video camera to watch you work all day?

~~~
bluejekyll
Work at a big company?

We have video cameras on every floor, at every entrance, and ones that
generally can capture the view of nearly everyone’s desk (one that captures
multiple aisles not specific desks).

These are only used if there are “security” reasons to review them, in theory.

~~~
mc32
Those roll over usually monthly. Mainly entrance exits are actively watched,
or those with an “alarm” state. No one will watch those other interior ones
unless there is reason to (property loss, altercation, etc., for evidentiary,
legal purposes).

You are also made aware of this. It’s not snuck up on you.

~~~
late2part
I agree it's not snuck up on you.

It's trivial today for those tertiary video cameras to collect meta data
directly (Changes) or with inference (facial recognition) to see who goes
where.

For you to suggest no one will watch them begs the question that the meta data
isn't collected. It may not be, but it might.

So a video camera that's not watched by humans 'wittingly' may still be
collecting privacy decreasing data.

------
sonnyblarney
Seems like the privacy rights of the dealership and their workers have been
transgressed.

~~~
DKnoll
In what way?

~~~
colechristensen
There was no expectation of being recorded on the job. Car maintenance and
repair isn't performance art. The recording was done secretly.

If you're an employee whose every action is going to be broadcast to the
world, your job gets a whole lot worse. You have to start acting like a public
face of the company.

The guy making the videos would be a good customer to fire.

~~~
DKnoll
I agree, I would fire the customer.

That said I was asking OP what privacy laws he thinks were violated.

~~~
colechristensen
Federal and state wiretapping laws, most likely. Sometimes they are rather
ambiguous, and states vary.

California is apparently one of the most restrictive two party consent
jurisdictions. That is basically that everybody has to consent to a
conversation being recorded or the act of recording is illegal. I'm pretty
sure this would apply to surveillance cameras inside cars while they are being
worked on.

~~~
DKnoll
This article is about an incident in Toronto, which is subject to Canadian
federal and Ontario provincial law.

------
jtokoph
You could argue that the owner was invading the dealership employee privacy by
sending in a covert recording device.

~~~
perl4ever
Based on the photo in the article, it seems like it was not covert. If it was
covert, how could they have turned it off? I would certainly acknowledge that
the dealership should be notified that it was recording, but it doesn't seem
clear that anything was sprung on them.

------
krn
To everyone claiming, that an employee has a right not to be recorded when
working: in practice, he doesn't. There are security cameras on every floor in
every office building. There are security cameras in every bar, restaurant,
and gas station. And there are security cameras in every dealership, too.

~~~
Confiks
The article is about Canada, but for EU law it wouldn't be a blanket rule that
says that you may not be filmed while on the job, but rather that the filming
must have a reasonable purpose. Filming the entrances for security reasons is
such a reasonable purpose, but that means the footage may not be used for
example to measure employee performance.

Your argument, and you see this nihilistic tendency often in privacy
discussions, is also based on some strange notion that if your privacy has
been violated once (and you didn't voice your disapproval), it may be
acceptably violated again. I see no reason for this to be.

~~~
krn
> Your argument

I'm not arguing that it's how it should be. I'm arguing that it's the way it
is _now_ in many parts of the world.

It would be a normal procedure to request the car's owner to disable the
dashcam before the service, and not to agree to service the car with the
dashcam on.

But no dealer has the right to turn off the dashcam himself.

------
Aeolun
I’m honestly more concerned for the mechanic :/

------
steve_taylor
> _" If the technician does decide that they want it off, we would notify the
> customer that it is going to be turned off … because we are totally
> transparent,"_

That’s hilarious.

------
cordonbleu
["If the technician does decide that they want it off, we would notify the
customer that it is going to be turned off … because we are totally
transparent," Safonov said.]

Turning off a security measure that protects property and documents that
service billed actually did occur is not an indicator of procedural
transparency.

------
matte_black
This is standard practice at most dealers now.

You do NOT need video surveillance of your vehicle while it’s being repaired.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Why not? You're not allowed in the bays for "safety reasons" and numerous
times covert recording devices have found shady business practices. Workers
routinely have monitoring software on their workplace computers. Car
dealerships are notorious for ripping people off. You're also not allowed to
destroy someone else's property, which the video was, and you're definitely
not allowed to go through someone else's property.

~~~
tobtoh
As an employee, you consented to be monitored at work by your employer when
you signed your workplace agreements. The mechanic has not.

However, destroying the video files is inappropriate.

