I find it interesting, though, that the owner doesn’t worry about the privacy rights of the mechanic to not be filmed on the job.
Pro tip: ask to see any parts that were “replaced” on your vehicle.
BMW dealers are NOT inherently trustworthy.
Agreed on needing to find a new dealer, I will only buy another BMW if I move to a state with a trustworthy dealer. Unfortunately Washington has none.
Expensive and probably unnecessary but I seriously doubt they would do fishy things to parts that required an inspection by the customer.
I understand throwing parts at a problem but they misdiagnosed a simple issue so badly that I suspect malice.
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.
You are also made aware of this. 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.
Ok, it’s audio, not video… but it’s still recording.
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.
The correct thing to do in this case though would be for the dealership to call the customer and state that they won't do work on a car with recording equipment running and he needs to come turn it off, or ask permission if they can turn it off. They should, of course, have a written policy to handle this and not do it on the fly.
Is it true?
How would I be invading your privacy if you are standing in front of your unobstructed window naked and I can see you from the street? If I'm on the street, I can take legally pics of anything I can see. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless you close your blinds.
Edit, link: https://legalbeagle.com/8608636-laws-being-photographed-perm...
> Be a little careful however if you are using a telephoto lens. Just because your feet are on public land doesn't mean that you can shoot into private property.
That said I was asking OP what privacy laws he thinks were violated.
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.
Thanks, this is the discussion I was looking to have. I just have an interest in privacy law, I am not advocating what the person in the article did.
If I pick up a phone and call a service center, they tell me they are recording the call. Obviously a phone has a microphone, because I am talking into it doesn't mean I consent to being recorded; my default expectation is that I am speaking unrecorded to another human not stored except for the necessities of transmission.
You are correct that placing a camera and not being present while it records does not make you a party, but if you make it clear (verbally, signage, blinking light from a camera on your windshield) that a camera is recording in your vehicle and they choose to work on it they are a consenting party.
The law says that you cannot record where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that is meant to apply to places like bathrooms, change rooms, saunas and other similar places.
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.
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.
But dealership is not a public place.
Additionally you are only allowed to use cameras for security purposes if you can make a case that there is no other way to protect yourself. And before you're in view of any camera it must have been stated explicitly, or the cameras must be obvious before you're being filmed.
Turning off a security measure that protects property and documents that service billed actually did occur is not an indicator of procedural transparency.
You do NOT need video surveillance of your vehicle while it’s being repaired.
However, destroying the video files is inappropriate.
The problem is doing it in secret.
I was initially with you, but on thought, why? This is worth arguing.
That's a two way street...
I could see the value of being able to see someone working on your car, but only in the situation where it was explicitly agreed to beforehand. A) the employee has privacy rights, and B) if you really wanted footage that helped, you'd need to have cameras setup outside of the car, which would require help from the car shop.
I can't imagine wanting to be a mechanic in a shop that recorded me for the customers (I assume that there are cameras in place for security anyway). But I could see this being a real differentiator for a new auto shop -- You can trust us - you can watch us work on your car!