Has anybody ever installed or thought about installing a mini camera in their engine compartment particularly if you have someone else do maintenance on your vehicle? My wife took her Mazda in for an oil change the other day and after she turned down some of their maintenance requests for additional service (i.e., radiator fush, battery post cleaning etc) she drove the car home. The next day while I'm driving the CEL comes on and starts flashing, I pull into AutoZone and hook up the OBD where it states I have a misfire in #2 cylinder. I go home check the spark plug cable on #2 and I notice that its barely (if not @ all) attached to the plug. Then I get to noticing that all of the plug wires are loose with the exception of one. Now I'm thinking this is just too much of a coincidence for this to happen now just after I get the oil changed. I can't proved anything but I'm really suspicious now. So I thought about a mini camera or something just to keep an eye on things. I've never had a problem with this before as we have used this place for many years (not a national franchise but local garage). I thought about talking to the manager but I think I would be wasting my time without any proof. Any thoughts on this?
It would be super easy to do. cwh can probably point you to suppliers.
Legal issues are scary.
You certainly don't want to capture audio.
there's key fob size cameras that pop up on ebay once in a while for cheap. I'm sure you could find a place to hide it in the engine compartment.
mmosbey wrote:
Legal issues are scary.
You certainly don't want to capture audio.
Call me dumb, but what legal issues would there be? It's your car, right? To me it seems no different than a traffic cam on the dash (becoming very common with smartphones etc) or a 'nanny cam'. Not trying to flame, just really curious.
Different situation, but one time I got an oil change, checked the level afterward, and the oil was dark. I went back and questioned whether they had actually changed the oil or not. The manager took me to their DVR system, where they have a camera trained on each bay. He showed me the video of my car's service, where I saw the oil filter changed (which would've let a lot of oil out even without draining it properly) and the filler nozzle putting a bunch of new oil in. He covered himself, and I was satisfied - at least, that they had done the work I'd paid for. Not so happy about my dirty engine, but that wasn't their fault.
There are various legal issues (varying from state to state) about video falling under existing wiretapping laws and being illegal. Many of these are getting struck down, but it's something to have in mind.
The legal thing should be able to be skirted by having a sign shop cut some vinyl for your window that says "close circuit tv is used on these premises", lol. That's how homes and businesses have to notify patrons and visitors. And yeah, audio is a no-no.
Curmudgeon wrote:
mmosbey wrote:
Legal issues are scary.
You certainly don't want to capture audio.
Call me dumb, but what legal issues would there be? It's your car, right? To me it seems no different than a traffic cam on the dash (becoming very common with smartphones etc) or a 'nanny cam'. Not trying to flame, just really curious.
IANAL, but this is the internet, where that doesn't stop people. Just keep in mind this is from my personal understanding that no one should have any reason to believe is worth anything.
In stories and cases I've read about that are over video, audio, and photography, it seems like a couple of questions have come up:
1) Expectation of privacy. Driving down the street, there is no expectation of privacy, so there is nothing improper about recording what goes on there. In a bathroom stall, there is an expectation of privacy. Is there an expectation of privacy in the service bay at your garage? If your opinion differs from a judge/jury/precident/explicit law, you may have committed a crime.
2) Audio recording is more contentious than video-only recording.
3) Wiretapping statutes are sometimes made to apply even though you're not fiddling with phones. Laws vary by state, and may require only the consent of one party of the conversation, or may require the consent of all parties to the conversation.
4) I have read stuff that suggests that a certain amount of employer privilege exists under your interest in securing and monitoring your workplace and workers, but are you the employer of the people you'll be recording or a customer, and as a customer, are you afforded the same privilege?
Again, IANAL, but I think there is enough risk of spending time behind bars to call in a professional.
In reply to mmosbey:
1) Driving down the street may eliminate any expectation of privacy, but there was a motorcyclist arrested in MD for posting a video of his arrest at gunpoint for traffic violations on YouTube. Eventually the wiretap charge was dropped, but he had to expend the time, money and effort to fight it. IIRC the basis of the charge was that the video camera also recorded audio as you discuss in #2.
One article here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/17/online-posting-motorcyclists-traffic-stop-sets-debate-wiretap-law/
I would think that there's a significant difference between a recording that's admissible as evidence in court and a recording that's being used to show whether or not work was performed in a private business transaction. Only if you had an expectation of taking a case to court would I be concerned about meeting the former standard.
Had the same thought the other day. As I had tires put on my 91 Escort I was called out and the tech told me my ball joints were shot and wrassled the wheel around and it made a definite clunk.
As I looked and wiggled it myself I saw all the play was in the upper strut mount.
Knowing that I had replaced the ball joints (and bushings, steering rack, bearings and axles) in the last 40,000 miles I was skeptical of his diagnosis.
Dropped the car, paid for my tires and left.
Since the front struts were (to the best of my knowledge) 20 years old I ordered struts and mounts for the whole car when I got home.
As I looked I saw tool marks on my front strut mount nuts.
And I could not reproduce the wiggling that was evident at the tire store!!
Did they loosen 4 nuts and show me a problem hoping that I would approve a fix that I did not need? Once I called their bluff did they just retighten the 4 nuts?
Just adds to my skepticism of repair shops.
New shocks are great too...really did need them after 366,000 miles.
Bruce
Went in once to get a new set of tires put on my Ranger. I picked the shop ONLY because they sold the same brand I wanted put on and they were close to work. A few days after getting the tires, I noticed that the rear pair looked too worn to have been recently changed. I went back to the shop and showed the manager and his response was:
"...we have had a lot a trouble with the guy who worked on your truck, and we are probably going to let him go." AND, they gladly put the 2 tires on that I had already paid for.
With loose plug wires, it's harder to say than it would be with obviously worn tires, that the car was tampered with. But mentioning it (calling it to the manager's attention with a phone call) might help. You do say you never had something like this happen at that shop before?
ignorant wrote:
Had the same thought the other day. As I had tires put on my 91 Escort I was called out and the tech told me my ball joints were shot and wrassled the wheel around and it made a definite clunk.
As I looked and wiggled it myself I saw all the play was in the upper strut mount.
Knowing that I had replaced the ball joints (and bushings, steering rack, bearings and axles) in the last 40,000 miles I was skeptical of his diagnosis.
Dropped the car, paid for my tires and left.
Since the front struts were (to the best of my knowledge) 20 years old I ordered struts and mounts for the whole car when I got home.
As I looked I saw tool marks on my front strut mount nuts.
And I could not reproduce the wiggling that was evident at the tire store!!
Did they loosen 4 nuts and show me a problem hoping that I would approve a fix that I did not need? Once I called their bluff did they just tighten the 4 nuts?
Just adds to my skepticism of repair shops.
New shocks are great too...really did need them after 366,000 miles.
Bruce
That one I would have called them on. Especially since you knew the parts they were saying were bad were just replaced. I had a similar situation with rear calipers in my mustang. But it got WAY OUT OF HAND in a hurry. I will also prefeis this by saying I was dressed very nice. I had the suite and tie thing going on as I had a meeting to get to leader in the day. I never seem to have issues with car places if I am dressed in genes and a greasy T shirt.
The calipers in question were less than a month old but it was now getting in to winter and the salt had oxidised the metal on the calipers to the point that they did not look new any more. The shop (a well known chain) I took the car to was running a special. An oil change at %50 and get a second one for %50 off. A good way to get people to come back I guess.
Anyway I was waiting in the lobby for the car and the counter guy comes to me and said that they tested my brakes as they were pulling the car in to the bay and I needed to replace the rear calipers and pads. The were very insistent that they needed to be replaced. After all they had a break testing machine was what they kept repeating. After letting them do the song and dance and the manager joining in telling me that it was a life safety issue and they really should not let the car out of the garage until it was fixed. They were very insistent about this. I told them I needed to make a phone call. With them standing in front of me and other customers looking on I called the local police and asked then to send an officer down as the shop was illegally holding my car. The manager and the counter guy actually thought I was bluffing. I said no I really had called the police. I was not tipping my hand that I had the parts receipt in my brief case. When the officer showed up things changed really quickly. The counter guy looked ill and the manager got this indigent look that I should have known was trouble.
I greeted the officer in the parking lot with the manager in tow. The officer listened to my story and then asked to come see the car and asked me to get the receipt. You would be surprised just how fast the manager did an about face. All of a sudden it became a misunderstanding. The explanation to the officer and me was that they had tested another car and counter guy had mixed things up. The officer was not buying it and asked to speak with the manager with out me present. They went back out to the parking lot and I went to the waiting room. The next thing I know there are two more unmarked cars showing up and they are hauling the manager away in cuffs. I was in the waiting room and did not see what was going on. Now I really don't know what to do. I still have not paid for the oil change. The original officer comes in and tells me to get my car meet them at the station. I had to go to the bay that my car was in and get my car because at this point no one is doing anything.
Turns out the manager took a swing at the officer in the parking lot and the officer hit his panic button. I met with a detective and re-counted the events and left (I was not late for my meeting)
I got a letter of apology form corporate headquarters from the service chain asking me to give them another chance. I did not follow up with any formal complaint but the DA did ask to speak with me later about the incident.
In less than a year the place was out of business. I did get a free oil change out of it.
Dean- what a story. That further helps me justify doing all my own maintenance. I understand that it isn't for everyone, but if there is one thing in this world that I can't take, it is getting screwed- I can't imagine what I'd have done if someone held my car hostage.
I worked in news.. but never did undercover stuff.. but it might be a case of "free speech" or even only one party needs to know they are being recorded
Wiretapping laws vary by state. Just know the rules you're playing under.
This is why I try to be an ethical mechanic and do what I'm paid to do, nothing less. Karma seems to help a little bit too, as the scum bags will get their comeuppance, big time, eventually.
I don't know how guys can work in a shop like that.
It pisses me off to no end because I get to hear the "mechanics are crooks" line from so many folks who don't know what I do for a living.
I feel bad when I find problems on some of these cars. We had a guy pay a LOT of dough for a "fully restored" '56 Olds at the B/J auction, only to find we had to dump a couple thousand more into it to make it pass a vehicle inspection. I hate having to give someone news like that.
Shawn
That's what the business is coming to, unfortunately. It used to be that there was a sense of 'we get paid because the customer's problem is fixed', it's 100% numbers driven now as in 'we get paid because we rack up the big numbers on unneeded crap'. There is not a whole lot of room left for ethical people.
There's also a big bump in people willing to rip someone off, like the story recounted elsewhere about the people in a van with bald tires who backed over some glass in a Wal Mart parking lot and beat them out of a new tire.
I am really getting sick of people.
Secretariata wrote:
In reply to mmosbey:
1) Driving down the street may eliminate any expectation of privacy, but there was a motorcyclist arrested in MD for posting a video of his arrest at gunpoint for traffic violations on YouTube. Eventually the wiretap charge was dropped, but he had to expend the time, money and effort to fight it. IIRC the basis of the charge was that the video camera also recorded audio as you discuss in #2.
One article here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/17/online-posting-motorcyclists-traffic-stop-sets-debate-wiretap-law/
I've seen that. It's a mess.
On the up side, the Justice Department filed the following:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf
I see this as unqualified Good News.
jj wrote:
There are always undercover news reporters going into businesses with hidden cameras (with audio). How can they do it, but the average person can't?
I raised the "get a lawyer first" suggestion. I don't think, for the most part, that the news reporters can do more than you or me, (though being a member of the press certainly speaks to intent if there is a question about a camera) just that they have their own lawyers who they ask before taking a chance.
mmosbey wrote:
Secretariata wrote:
In reply to mmosbey:
1) Driving down the street may eliminate any expectation of privacy, but there was a motorcyclist arrested in MD for posting a video of his arrest at gunpoint for traffic violations on YouTube. Eventually the wiretap charge was dropped, but he had to expend the time, money and effort to fight it. IIRC the basis of the charge was that the video camera also recorded audio as you discuss in #2.
One article here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/17/online-posting-motorcyclists-traffic-stop-sets-debate-wiretap-law/
I've seen that. It's a mess.
On the up side, the Justice Department filed the following:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf
I see this as unqualified Good News.
So the nice officer can record you with his dash cam (including audio) but you can't record him? Hmmm. I see big problems with that.
NINJA EDIT: As I have said before, I support the police. They have a helluva hard job that I couldn't do. But if an officer steps out of line (as the one who stopped the motorcyclist did, he should have flashed his badge instead of his weapon) then they should expect no special treatment.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
That seems to be what the Justice Department letter is pushing back against - affirming that there is a right to record the police, and that destruction of the recordings in the moment, in the field, is improper.
(also edited)
mmosbey wrote:
jj wrote:
There are always undercover news reporters going into businesses with hidden cameras (with audio). How can they do it, but the average person can't?
I raised the "get a lawyer first" suggestion. I don't think, for the most part, that the news reporters can do more than you or me, (though being a member of the press certainly speaks to intent if there is a question about a camera) just that they have their own lawyers who they ask before taking a chance.
Yeah, if you want to do anything with this video you need to come up with a plan with a lawyer.
