2015 Corvette Valet Mode Recorder Illegal In Some States

innocent_white_lamb writes: The 2015 Corvette has a Valet Mode that records audio and video when someone other than the owner is driving the car. Activating the Valet Mode allows you to record front-facing video as well as capture audio from within the car so you can help keep your Corvette safe when it's in the hands of others. Well, it turns out that recording audio from within the car may be considered a felony in some states that require notice and consent to individuals that they are being recorded. Now GM is sending notices out to dealerships and customers alerting them to this fact as well as promising a future update to the PDR system.

Comments

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the inside of the car is privately owned by the owner of the car?

Re:huh?

[ganjadude]

so a simple disclaimer on the visor will due

For quality assurance, your valet drive may be recorded. If you do not consent to being recorded, do not drive this car.

It works for anything over the telephone right??

Re:huh?

[Enry]

That's kinda the point. This wouldn't be any different from putting hidden cameras in your house when the babysitter is over. You're not in a public place, so you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You don't lose that expectation just because you were invited into someone else's property.

I'd put a sticker on the window "car has recording technology installed" and maybe a notice on the dash when the car starts or goes into that mode. That's pretty easy to do. Well, not so easy after the fact. Maybe next model year.

Re:huh?

[TheRealMindChild]

The problem here is recording audio. In the states where this isn't permitted, it is considered "Wire tapping" since it is "intercepting communication". These are called "all party states", where everyone has to give consent.

You are, however, free to record just video.

Re:huh?

[gstoddart]

Nope, wrong. It's your house. You can put all the cameras you want inside of it. There are no restrictions.

So, if the car is private property ... I'd be curious to know the legal distinction.

If you have no expectation of privacy in my home, you also have no expectation of privacy in my car.

It's not a public space, and you're there under my permission to complete a specific task. If you subsequently go outside the bounds of that task, or start rifling through my stuff, in what way is it different from a nanny cam?

And, really, just take a page out of the playbook of software ... by entering this car you agree to all terms and conditions set forth by the vehicle owner. (I'm joking on that one, I don't agree that click through EULAs in which one party can arbitrarily make changes is a good idea.)

Re:huh?

[WorBlux]

If you capture video of two deaf people signing to each other, is that wiretapping?

Re:huh?

[alvinrod]

Doubtful. Walk into most gas stations or any major retail store and you're under video surveillance and their notification amounts to a sticker on the window of the door or on the wall as you enter the building. If there's a notification on the visor, that would be sufficient in my opinion. Those are about as non-intrusive as it gets so why should a car be held to higher standards?

Re:huh?

[detritus.]

At least in my state (MI), video surveillance does not need any notification where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, but audio requires consent if you are not a party to the conversation.

Re:huh?

[mrchaotica]

Well that's stupid; it discriminates against people using sign language!

Re:huh?

[Yakasha]

You are off the rails. The FCC does not have the power to nullify the anti-wiretapping laws of states.

Fuck the state. Seriously. They work for the tax payer and should be representing the interests of tax payer rather than criminals be they individuals or corporations.

They do. That is why it is illegal to record you without your permission; such as when your friend loans you their car... When thinking about a law, try to imagine yourself in both positions.

Just put fine print sticker on the dash,,,,,

[genner]

This car monitored for quality assurance.

Re:If I own the car

[Charliemopps]

Its not illegal as long as you mention "Hey, my car has video cameras in it." before you hand them the keys.

Whats illegal is taping them without their knowledge. They could potentially make a call to their lawyer or doctor after they park it and you could unintentionally record privileged information. At some point such systems will be so common you wont have to mention it anymore.

Re:Simple fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, you'd have to add the message in braille to be compliant.

Re:Simple fix.

[Albanach]

It's a Corvette. You think a Corvette owner wants a label like that on the dashboard?

Perhaps a better solution would be a 'valet key' that when used limits access to the boot, reduces acceleration (like the Eco mode you get on lots of modern cars and limits speed to say 60mph), When the valet key is placed in the ignition the stereo could announce that video and audio recording will be enabled when the car is started.

With a key like that, some folk might even let their kids drive the Corvette!

Re:Keeping it safe

[Jeremy Erwin]

Valet mode also locks storage compartments, and disables the stereo. corvette commercial hawking the feature

Re:Simple fix.

[worf_mo]

You might have been out for a Score 5 Funny, but you also delivered a plausible explanation for the abysmal parking performance of the guy I saw earlier today.

Re:Use the EULA?

[tompaulco]

It would have to be conspicuous enough that it would be obvious to a prosecutor, judge, or whoever else enters the mix.

Why does it have to be conspicuous? Just put it in a sealed box and tell the Judge he can see the EULA after he buys the car, after which point he will no longer be able to return the car. There is legal precedent.

Re:Simple fix.

[Yakasha]

If you need to read in Braille, what the fuck are you doing at the wheel of a goddamm car???

Why would they put Braille on the drive-up ATMs if they didn't expect me to drive there?