Dash cams/Data protection ?

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

13 minutes ago, Gizmo68 said:

How did Blackvue tell you to sync the two cameras? 

I have two in the Yeti which are a few seconds out (the voice prompt is also turned off... but to no avail) 

 

James ours are all ignition fed, I have no interest in casing a workshop or spying on the mechanic whilst he is doing his job, road tests however should be done with resect to others property and the law. 

Most people have no interest in what goes on, smile and pay their bill, the select few however always want their pound of flesh and see us as the enemy.

 

it shouldn't matter whether the vehicle is in or out of the workshop - the person in charge has a duty of care to look after the vehicle and treat it with respect (maybe that's what's missing in a lot of dealerships). 

 

If they cant look after the customers vehicle then the company should be asking why they even work there. 

[LHVRS]

16 hours ago, James@RRGRochdale said:

 

it shouldn't matter whether the vehicle is in or out of the workshop - the person in charge has a duty of care to look after the vehicle and treat it with respect (maybe that's what's missing in a lot of dealerships). 

 

If they cant look after the customers vehicle then the company should be asking why they even work there. 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head, this is definitely missing in a lot of garages.

 

All I want is a garage I can trust to maintain my car and treat it with respect.

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

It's missing throughout the entire trade and life in general. 

 

People have little (if any) respect for themselves, other people and their property. 

 

 

[LHVRS]

6 minutes ago, James@RRGRochdale said:

It's missing throughout the entire trade and life in general. 

 

People have little (if any) respect for themselves, other people and their property. 

 

 

Very true. 

[SkodaVRS1963]

On 26/02/2017 at 17:30, LHVRS said:

Very true. 

 

Only for a large percentage of the population.

 

There are some of us who were brought up properly and who respect other people and their property.

 

Don't generalise and tar everyone with the same brush please.

[LHVRS]

5 minutes ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

Only for a large percentage of the population.

 

There are some of us who were brought up properly and who respect other people and their property.

 

Don't generalise and tar everyone with the same brush please.

 

I think thats what James meant or at least thats what I thought he meant, a large percentage of people have no respect for other people things. 

Edited 27 February, 2017 by LHVRS

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

29 minutes ago, LHVRS said:

 

I think thats what James meant or at least thats what I thought he meant, a large percentage of people have no respect for other people things. 

That's what I meant 

[mikey vrs]

When i had my octavia it was due a mot & my usual garage was closed due to a fire so i used a local place & as soon as they got in the car to put it on the ramp the guy got out & asked me to either remove the front & rear facing cameras or turn them off or remove the memory cards otherwise they would refuse to carry out the mot as it was now their policy,i had no problem doing this,ironic thing was they let me stand in the bay talking to them whilst they did the mot so clearly had nothing to hide but it was their policy. 

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

Observing has never been an issue, it's the record and keep element that businesses have a problem with. 

 

 

[gRoberts]

2 hours ago, James@RRGRochdale said:

Observing has never been an issue, it's the record and keep element that businesses have a problem with. 

 

Similarly to CCTV, dashcam footage is only retained for a particular reason. 90% of footage is deleted.

 

It's the instances where customers have found footage and haven't been notified before hand that their property had been mis-treated in some way or form that's the issue. If all companies (some are, I admit) were honest when doing something wrong, this whole conversation would unlikely be happening. 

 

A mechanic at my local indie garage took my car home with him and drove it back the next day, without mentioning it once. Without my dashcam, I wouldn't have known the difference, however if something would have happened to my car, would they have openly admitted it, if they could get away with saying nothing?

 

Either way, customers will think with their feet. If you're not happy to be recorded whilst carrying out work a customer is paying for, ask them to turn it off or collect their vehicle.

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

It doesn't have to be a case of "if we're not happy" it should be a compromise between customer and the company that: you are not allowed to record from your vehicle whilst it's in our workshop. 

 

There needs to be an understanding and a bit of mutual respect. Not all garages are out to rip people off or abuse their customers cars.

 

There's dishonesty in every trade yet the motor trade doesn't half cop for a large portion of the bashing. 

 

Can you imagine filming other tradesmen at work? Or a doctor, dentist etc They'd never work for you again! Look at how these idiots portray the police when they pull their phones out. Always a one sided account that hardly ever tells both sides in an unbiased manner.

 

Just to add - we have cctv on both the inside and outside of our business property with notifications all over our site. If something happens to a customers vehicle on site then our employers are usually already watching us. 

So why people feel the need to carry out their own investigative work is beyond me?

Edited 28 February, 2017 by James@RRGRochdale

[CWARD]

Most businesses have CCTV now and there doesn't appear to be an issue for recording their customers as they state it is for the protection of their business and staff. A customer who sets up a camera to record any damage to their car whilst in the care of that same business then objects. Complete hypocrisy especially when if damaged is caused to a customers vehicle and you ask to view their CCTV you can't due misquoted data protection or by some unfortunate event it has been corrupted.

I understand Jame's comments about the layout of the garage being recorded but customers aren't blind folded either and their eyes and memory will capture more than a fixed camera. If there is nothing to hide then their should be nothing to worry about. A cleverly edited dash cam video would be quickly disputed by the businesses own CCTV recording of the events so shouldn't be any issue anyway. 

As technology increases in cars it is only a matter of time before dash cams are factory fitted and unable to be switched off so that they act as a black box. It will be interesting to see how garages react to this and if the same views are held as they are in this debate.

 

BTW my doctors and dentists are both covered by CCTV including treatment rooms only the examination bed isn't covered.      

[gRoberts]

2 hours ago, CWARD said:

Most businesses have CCTV now and there doesn't appear to be an issue for recording their customers as they state it is for the protection of their business and staff. A customer who sets up a camera to record any damage to their car whilst in the care of that same business then objects. Complete hypocrisy especially when if damaged is caused to a customers vehicle and you ask to view their CCTV you can't due misquoted data protection or by some unfortunate event it has been corrupted.

I understand Jame's comments about the layout of the garage being recorded but customers aren't blind folded either and their eyes and memory will capture more than a fixed camera. If there is nothing to hide then their should be nothing to worry about. A cleverly edited dash cam video would be quickly disputed by the businesses own CCTV recording of the events so shouldn't be any issue anyway. 

As technology increases in cars it is only a matter of time before dash cams are factory fitted and unable to be switched off so that they act as a black box. It will be interesting to see how garages react to this and if the same views are held as they are in this debate.

 

BTW my doctors and dentists are both covered by CCTV including treatment rooms only the examination bed isn't covered.      

 

New citreon c3 has a dashcam as standard. 

[SkodaVRS1963]

3 hours ago, James@RRGRochdale said:

Just to add - we have cctv on both the inside and outside of our business property with notifications all over our site. If something happens to a customers vehicle on site then our employers are usually already watching us. 

So why people feel the need to carry out their own investigative work is beyond me?

 

I think the problem is, especially with the Police, that incriminating footage always seems to "go missing".

 

The murder of that Brazilian electrician on the Tube a few years ago is the most striking example; the Police claimed he did x, y and z before boarding the Tube (vaulting the barriers sticks in my mind) and when his family's solicitor requested CCTV footage from the station in question it emerged that the CCTV "wasn't turned on" that day!!

 

If my car gets bumped whilst in a dealership (in my case these days, Ford) I want to be able to rely upon my own evidence rather than have Ford say to me "we didn't do it and all our CCTV systems are down".

 

The root cause of this discussion is probably suspicion :-)

Edited 28 February, 2017 by SkodaVRS1963
spelling

[mabnz]

On 2/26/2017 at 07:50, SkodaVRS1963 said:

Any dealer that tells me they're charging me £200 for 4 hours work and yet won't allow me to view what they've done to earn the £50 an hour (which they've used an apprentice on £4 an hour to perform) can go whistle for their money, irrespective of vehicle marque.

 

It's like this the world over though. You do pay for a service and if you're unhappy with it, you are able to shop elsewhere.

 

[gRoberts]

3 hours ago, James@RRGRochdale said:

Can you imagine filming other tradesmen at work? Or a doctor, dentist etc They'd never work for you again! Look at how these idiots portray the police when they pull their phones out. Always a one sided account that hardly ever tells both sides in an unbiased manner.

 

As CWARD pointed out. You're expecting people to be ok with being recorded, staff included but then expecting them not to record you.

 

Returning your argument, it's amazing how quickly cctv footage disappears when it can show you've done something wrong. 

 

Trust works both ways and you generally have to earn it. Many of those caught out were in a position of trust. 

 

I don't mind being recorded. It makes me even more aware I have to do my job properly.

 

When people object to being recorded, there are usually reasons. 

 

Either way, I'm not suggesting you're untrustworthy but if you aren't doing anything wrong, the footage captured won't even be a problem. 

[mabnz]

I think if James owns a business and he doesn't want to be recorded, that's his decision and it's yours not to shop at his garage. Kinda like you might not want to be recorded at your home.

 

 

[petrolbloke]

On 26/02/2017 at 00:31, James@RRGRochdale said:

Most people have no interest in what goes on, smile and pay their bill, the select few however always want their pound of flesh and see us as the enemy.

 

Those 'most people' are the ones that don't know much about cars or care about their car other than it getting them from A-B reliably and allowing them to connect their iPhone via Bluetooth. The same sort of people that blindly believe whatever a garage tells them.

 

For those of us that care about our cars, we want assurance that it's being looked after properly while in someone else's care and a dashcam is a good way to get that. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where we can rely on other people's honesty and CCTV systems. Many smaller garages do not have CCTV and even if they do it wouldn't cover what happens on a road test.

 

I've had first hand experience with two garages doing poor quality work on my car that I then had to get rectified elsewhere and another case of a local garage taking my car to a Ford dealer at excessive speed to get parts presumably for another customer's car. On a similar note a friend's dashcam also captured some interesting footage from his car when it was left with Luton Airport meet and greet.

 

I wouldn't have a problem unplugging my dashcam if I was staying with the car while it was in for MOT/repair, but after my previous experiences I would not be comfortable unplugging the dashcam and leaving the car.

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

When I had a look earlier (through direct.gov, the independent surveillance commission, the ICO and various other sources)I found that in the U.K filming on private property is allowed solely at the discretion of the owners of said property, that said - you can film private property from public land(?)

 

Businesses using cctv are allowed to do so and film people on site providing they are warned with signage, only certain people have access and they can provide the footage within 40 days and charge a maximum fee of £10.

 

Also cctv has intended purpose regulations, for instance industrial cctv is used for crime prevention and cannot be used to spy on staff and monitor their workload, in a similar fashion domestic cctv is used for burglary prevention and not to spy on your neighbors and dash cams are used to aid drivers in the event of an accident to determine liability, not to check people working on their cars.

 

So filming on private property without the permission of the land owners permission is illegal as is filming people without giving them prior warning or filming them using a camera with a different intended purpose.

 

From a legal perspective, should you wish to make your filming of technicians fully legitimate whilst at the dealer it would seem that you should:

 

a. Seek the permission of the land owner 

 

b. Display signage that alerts people to the fact that they may be recorded (in or on your car, both audio and video, already mandatory for taxis). 

 

c. Have the cameras facing only on and in the vehicle and not at the road  ahead or behind. 

 

It seems to be a legal mine field.

 

there does seem to be many elements suggesting that filming people's faces or other vehicles number plates without just cause may also be infringing on the data protection act.

 

here's some useful info:

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

 

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection-your-business/using-cctv

Edited 28 February, 2017 by James@RRGRochdale

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

I'm an employee of a large company that already watches over us and offers the customer both CCTV and live viewing of us working on their vehicle. We also send each customer a video of the faults on their car to prove that we've checked it and noted defects that require attention. 

 

I can can understand that people have bad experiences with garages and want to keep an eye on what goes on but they need to be fully schooled up on the legitimacy of their actions and I suspect that using a dash cam to carry out that task may very well be breaking some rules. 

 

Its like when when people secretly record phone conversations without notifying the other party - it gets completely written off as evidence in court because it's been obtained illegitimately.

Edited 28 February, 2017 by James@RRGRochdale

[CWARD]

James, I don't think people have dash cams recording whilst in for servicing so that they scrutinise your work. I have much better things to do rather than watch my bonnet being lifted and not much else until it as shut then driven out to be parked up. 

The issue comes when damage has been done and your told it wasn't them when you know damn well it wasn't there before. I've had this before and unfortunetly it was before dash cams were available. It took me many months and stress to the get the garage to admit fault which turned out to the car cleaning guy that had caused the damage and not said anything.

I'm sure that if a customer brought it to your attention that one of your fellow workers was careless causing damage to or joy riding in cars you would want to take action and maintain the business reputation. That proof may well be from a dash cam that if nothing had happened the video would have been recorded over many times before you'd see the customer again who'd be happy to hand his car over to you knowing it was being looked after. 

[gRoberts]

9 hours ago, CWARD said:

James, I don't think people have dash cams recording whilst in for servicing so that they scrutinise your work. I have much better things to do rather than watch my bonnet being lifted and not much else until it as shut then driven out to be parked up. 

The issue comes when damage has been done and your told it wasn't them when you know damn well it wasn't there before. I've had this before and unfortunetly it was before dash cams were available. It took me many months and stress to the get the garage to admit fault which turned out to the car cleaning guy that had caused the damage and not said anything.

I'm sure that if a customer brought it to your attention that one of your fellow workers was careless causing damage to or joy riding in cars you would want to take action and maintain the business reputation. That proof may well be from a dash cam that if nothing had happened the video would have been recorded over many times before you'd see the customer again who'd be happy to hand his car over to you knowing it was being looked after. 

 

This is pretty much my point. 

 

The number of times footage has surfaced because a customer has had reason to check their dashcam, goes to show that damage has happened and rarely has anyone admitted fault before or after until footage is shown and then everyone gets their dpa knickers in a twist. 

 

What would your employer do if I claimed an employee had caused damage to my property or mistreated it (i.e. inappropriate test drive, unauthorised use)?

 

Unless the customer could prove it, what's the bet that it'll be swept under the carpet.

 

Basically if we get dashcam recording signs for our cars, we can carry on with our days and record regardless. 

[James@RRG_Skoda_Rochdale]

3 hours ago, gRoberts said:

 

This is pretty much my point. 

 

The number of times footage has surfaced because a customer has had reason to check their dashcam, goes to show that damage has happened and rarely has anyone admitted fault before or after until footage is shown and then everyone gets their dpa knickers in a twist. 

 

What would your employer do if I claimed an employee had caused damage to my property or mistreated it (i.e. inappropriate test drive, unauthorised use)?

 

Unless the customer could prove it, what's the bet that it'll be swept under the carpet.

 

Basically if we get dashcam recording signs for our cars, we can carry on with our days and record regardless. 

 

Define "inappropriate test drive"

 

our insurance requires permission from the customer prior to us taking the vehicle on extended test drives or use outside of work hours. 

 

At my place of work? If there was damage present after work had been carried out that wasn't noted on the pre-work body damage check sheet then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Happens all the time too when customers try it on. They'll walk straight out with the service advisor and point out a micro spec of damage that is hardly visible to the naked eye. We even had one person claiming we'd caused rust on his arch. 

 

You'd also need:

 

-permission from the land owner to film on site (public areas don't require permission) 

-justification as to why you want to film the person working on your car 

-the sole purpose of the cameras must be to surveil people working on your car and must be aimed on the car and nowhere else

 

it was interesting what I found when I was looking into this to see how other countries treat dash cams, Germany forbids the publishing of videos from dash cams where as Austria has an out and out ban on them with a substantial fine.

[brettikivi]

Belgium also has a ban. Sweden does not like them, nor does Finland. Germany did accept the footage as evidence in a court for the first time not too long back. However, it's still subject to witnesses and is not accepted as gospel. Finland demands you overwrite the footage rapidly as plates are private information.

 

 - Bret

[gRoberts]

13 minutes ago, James@RRGRochdale said:

 

Define "inappropriate test drive"

 

our insurance requires permission from the customer prior to us taking the vehicle on extended test drives or use outside of work hours. 

 

At my place of work? If there was damage present after work had been carried out that wasn't noted on the pre-work body damage check sheet then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Happens all the time too when customers try it on. They'll walk straight out with the service advisor and point out a micro spec of damage that is hardly visible to the naked eye. We even had one person claiming we'd caused rust on his arch. 

 

You'd also need:

 

-permission from the land owner to film on site (public areas don't require permission) 

-justification as to why you want to film the person working on your car 

-the sole purpose of the cameras must be to surveil people working on your car and must be aimed on the car and nowhere else

 

it was interesting what I found when I was looking into this to see how other countries treat dash cams, Germany forbids the publishing of videos from dash cams where as Austria has an out and out ban on them with a substantial fine.

 

Really, this is getting a little tedious now.

 

Not everyone is a model business/employee/employer that you claim to be. This isn't against you, it's in general.

 

Ultimately, if you're not happy with a customer with their dashcam, raise it with them and they can decide what to do. 

 

If everyone trusted everyone to do the right thing, dashcams, CCTV and what not would not be needed.