akirby Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 How the hell did this get past the attorneys? MASTER THE MACHINE: PERFORMANCE DATA RECORDER Capture the excitementRecord, share and analyze your driving experiences on and off the track with the available industry-exclusive Performance Data Recorder. Add an extra dimension to your drive by logging video of your drives, along with real-time performance data, onto an SD memory card stored in the glove box. Four modes — Track, Performance, Sport and Touring — allow you to capture video, audio, driving stats, date and time, and a lot more. You can even capture video and data when someone else is driving the car with Valet Mode, giving you extra peace of mind. http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/26/corvette-performance-data-recorder-illegal-some-states/ According to a letter posted by Jalopnik, Chevy dealers are asking 2015 Corvette owners not to use the Valet Mode portion of the PDR because it records audio in the cabin, in addition to performance specs. That's a problem because privacy laws vary from state to state with some requiring just one side's consent to tape sound and others requiring all parties to agree. According Jalopnik, 15 states mandate everyone's permission beforehand, but it's not clear whether these numbers are up to date. (Actually, the report varies, saying 13 states in some places and 15 in a list.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Put a notice on the visor that says if you drive this vehicle you agree to be recorded for quality assurance purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Put a notice on the visor that says if you drive this vehicle you agree to be recorded for quality assurance purposes. As funny as that is, that's not a bad idea. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure you can't be held responsible if they ignore/don't see the sign even if it is in plain sight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blwnsmoke Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 They could easily put that into the start up process as well on one of the screens. Not too difficult to fix BUT I agree, how did they miss this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 BUT I agree, how did they miss this? I can think of one scenario where they developed the audio recording as part of the video recording package for track days and Valet mode did not originally include audio recording. Then some engineer realized it was just a couple lines of code to activate the audio recording in valet mode and it was late in the program and legal was not consulted on the change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 I think the simplest solution is to just take the audio out of valet mode altogether since the audio/video recording for track days has to be initiated by the driver and doesn't happen automatically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I'd have to think that video recording requires consent as well..... And a disclaimer allowing recording as a condition of operating the vehicle could conceivably be ruled unconscionable in a contract of adhesion*, and even if that weren't the case, there's probably a hundred or more lawyers that would love to take the case on. *a 'contract of adhesion' is a contract which may not be modified by the party to whom it is offered. The most familiar form today is the "Terms and Conditions" contract in software and on websites, but the earliest instances were, among other things, life insurance policies and promissory notes. Unconscionable provisions are provisions which a 'reasonable person' would consider to be 'grossly unfair'. Requiring passengers to sacrifice an expected right to privacy in order to ride in a vehicle seems to be a textbook instance of a 'grossly unfair' provision. Unconscionable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contracts-unconscionability/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 And I expect this slipped through the cracks of GM's legal department because they've been a bit preoccupied by other matters lately.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Personally, I think it's BS that I can't record the audio of someone driving MY car, whether they like it or not! When you step in MY car, you play by MY rules. Same goes if you step in MY house. But hey, that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Personally, I think it's BS that I can't record the audio of someone driving MY car, whether they like it or not! When you step in MY car, you play by MY rules. Same goes if you step in MY house. But hey, that's just me. You can - you just have to notify them ahead of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 I'd have to think that video recording requires consent as well..... And a disclaimer allowing recording as a condition of operating the vehicle could conceivably be ruled unconscionable in a contract of adhesion*, and even if that weren't the case, there's probably a hundred or more lawyers that would love to take the case on. The video is recording outside the car so that wouldn't violate any personal privacy laws (I don't think). Also - someone in the vehicle has to activate the recording which implies that at least one person being recorded is aware of the recording and I think that satisfies the legal requirement. When you do the recording automatically without anyone in the car doing anything - that's effectively the same as a wiretap. I do agree that you should be able to record anything that happens in your home or vehicle - period. Wait - what about nanny cams? How are those legal? Or is your house different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Some states (I don't know how many) require all parties to consent to a recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Looks like 12 require all parties to consent with a lot of exceptions for public conversations, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.