Wally wrote: I had a "friend" that used to fill his inflateadate with hydrogen and turn on the ceiling fan so she'd play hard to get. Someone sent me I mean him the Hindenburg video so now she gets filled with helium.
Damn, I wish I was 10% as funny as Wally.
Good grief, dude, how do you live with yourself??
I've not seen this type of behavior on the fullsize GM forums I still randomly lurk. I think this is an Import truck thing. Makes sense though... you can't be too bright to buy an overpriced toyota, then spend more to make it look silly. 
Real men drive trucks with pushrods.
ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to dean1484: So you wouldn't try to get someone fired for cutting and pasting a person's innumerable spelling and grammar errors on another website?
I think the stupid part of my brain I taking over. I have no clue what you are getting at.
Bobzilla wrote: I've not seen this type of behavior on the fullsize GM forums I still randomly lurk. I think this is an Import truck thing. Makes sense though... you can't be too bright to buy an overpriced toyota, then spend more to make it look silly.
yeah, I spend some time on the duramax and powerstroke forums and it is not like that. Plus, more importantly, guys talking about rolling coal etc are flamed.
The more stupider part of the whole thing if you read through it is:
So... this guy is getting wildly butthurt and gets the tech FIRED because the tech is effectively criticizing some VERY poor (and maybe dangerous) work done by this other shop!!!
(as noted, its possible the BroDozerDuche instructed the shop to do this, but even if that is the case, they really should not have)
dean1484 wrote: There are two sides to everything. Should he have been fired? No, not unless he has done it before and warned about it or there is a policy in place at his work place. There is also a level of privacy with respect to ones clients and the people that the service industry serves. If I blabbed about all the things I see when in clients places of business or in some cases privet residence's I would be in a lot of trouble. There is an expected level of privacy in business. Hell there may even be consumer protection laws about this kind of thing. I would not be pleased if I took my car to a shop and my handy work (good or bad) became the poster child for "look at what this idiot did". There is a case for the persons car that was put up on the web to take the owners of the shop to court for liable. It is a classic case of THINK before you blab about something. The internet is not the faceless repository it use to be. There should be consequences for calling some one an idiot with out them being able to defend them self's. In this case someone got what they really deserved. The tech deserves what he got and the rest of the industry should take notice and remember that they have a responsibility of privacy to the consumer. Good for the web site for calling the tech out.
I'm not a lawyer, but my first thought is that you can't be sued for libel for something that is actually true … 
Dean, I do agree with you up to a point about not blabing and posting this kind of stuff on the internet but the "responsibility of privacy to the consumer" is a load of E36 M3.
Part 1: Public safety (cars/ trucks) is a concern and regulated in most state's by inspectors (grease monkeys who can count to 11) who are required by the law to record and inform the local government of issues with cars and trucks. This recorded can be used against owners if something "bad" happens due to an unresolved issue with their car.
Part 2: Taking a picture of the truck and bad mouthing it on the internet is poor taste, had the truck been on the parking lot this would not be an issue as the dealership is open to the public and that is that. Posting the picture of the truck in the shop is what got this guy sacked, he should not have posted the pic as he made the entire dealership look bad, this is why he was sacked.
Paul B
dean1484 wrote: The tech deserves what he got and the rest of the industry should take notice and remember that they have a responsibility of privacy to the consumer. Good for the web site for calling the tech out.
Easy revenge- mechanic calls proper authorities about said "dangerous truck" that could become a "rolling fireball" get him Shut down when that brodozer piece of crap gets shut down for being mechanically unsafe.
This has happened before 
Trackmouse wrote: Easy revenge- mechanic calls proper authorities about said "dangerous truck" that could become a "rolling fireball" get him Shut down when that brodozer piece of crap gets shut down for being mechanically unsafe.
I do hope "butt hurt" remembers both his phone number and address are printed on the repair order.
i only wish it was ok to post the dumb E36 M3 i see almost daily!
It's frightening how things can get out of hand on the Internet. For the record I think the guy had some work done at a muffler shop and then took it to Toyota to have it redone. So if the mechanic took a photo and publicly shamed the wrong person then maybe he should have been fired. He was representing his employer in a way.
"From Punch in the TundraTalk thread: The exhaust is fairly loud so I dropped it off at an exhaust shop to tone down the noise. They ****ed up, don't have time, having toyota fix it for me and muffler shop is paying the bill. Would like to see this pic though, so I can raise hell at Toyota."
I really don't know if there is any consumer protection laws out there that address this kind of thing. I may actually look it up tomorrow as it has a direct impact on my job.
I can summarize this entire mess in one sentence. Even if she says yes, the law calls it incest.
Well since the guy actually took identifiable pics of the entire truck (including a license plate that would be readable if not for a big reflection in the middle!) he rolled the dice with his job and can't complain that he lost it. He lost it this time over a douchebag with a fragile ego, but it just as easily could have been a customer who was simply ticked over the privacy implications, or even his boss finding the pics.
In reply to dean1484:
I think you are mistaken about the consumer's "right to privacy".
When the owner brought his property into a business establishment and asked them to look under it, he made it public. With no further confidentiality agreement, there should be none assumed nor implied.
If the owner did not want anyone to see it, he should not have shown it to anyone.
The dealer's obligation to "privacy" is imagined. It is a by-product of our whole societal warped view of what our rights are. It also makes us feel more important than we actually are to think that maybe we have a secret we should not tell. We don't.
Similarly, when a customer invites you and your crew into his bedroom to do some work, you have no obligation to say nothing about the sex swing hanging from the ceiling, unless he has asked you not to. He invited you in there, and showed it to you.
I agree that talking about this stuff may be in poor taste, but there is no legal obligation to avoid doing so, nor consumer protections.
We are not handling State secrets here. We are talking about looking at the bottom of a truck (or a living space, in your case) WITH the permission of the owner.
I have worked in the homes of many important people, including judges and a US President. When people expect a higher standard of privacy, they make it pretty clear.
Interestingly, the judges usually care more than the US President did. They have sent bad people to prison with axes to grind and thugs for friends, and therefore would like their children and homes protected.
I had a long, very expert response typed up but the computer locked and I lost it. Doh. So here is the short response...
Taking pictures on the inside of someone's house is NOT the same as taking pictures of the outside of someone's vehicle. I would get that thought as far from my head as I could. Unless the contract/work order you have with the individual states you are allowed full access to their house and the consent to take pics, you would be in violation of the home owner's privacy. In other words leave the camera in your pocket and just tell the story of what you saw to your buddies later.
The court system has ruled, and ruled often, that people have a right to privacy in their homes. Hence, search warrants. The court system has also ruled, and ruled often, that people have a lesser right to privacy inside their vehicles. This right to privacy does carry over to when the vehicle is in public, but the vehicle is then subject to the plain view doctrine. Which means an officer has to have probable cause to stop the vehicle, and probable cause to search the vehicle. Just because you are out driving in public does NOT mean you have given consent for a law enforcement officer to enter and search your vehicle. Lastly, the courts have also ruled repeatedly, that the outside of someone's vehicle does not have the same level right to privacy as the inside of the vehicle, and no where near the privacy of someone's home.
With all that said...I didn't see the pics from the tech, I don't know what they were of, and I don't know where he was when he took them. Was he in the shop, under the vehicle, was a it a picture any citizen could take in public? I don't know. I just didn't want to see a new thread titled "Look at this giant dongle I found at a customer's house..." that could get someone in trouble.
Here are the pics he took:
http://imgur.com/a/S4rj5
In reply to octavious:
The guidelines you noted are for law enforcement and government.
Still not the same scenario.
THIS situation is that the owner KNEW he had a problem with the exhaust, ASKED the tech to look at it, AUTHORIZED the shop looking at it, and communicated NOTHING about maintaining confidentiality.
There are absolutely no privacy issues here.
I would add to it that if the employer had never communicated anything to the tech, and never had issues with him, the employer could be at risk for firing him (depending on the state).
So to sum this up what we have here is a failure to communicate. . 
In reply to SVreX.
I know mine was focused on the government side. But I imagine if anybody working inside someone's house took photos and posted them online there could be issues. I didn't want anyone on here to post some pics of junk they saw in someone's house and get in trouble.
octavious wrote: "Look at this giant dongle I found at a customer's house..." that could get someone in trouble.
While I am also not interested in reading that particular thread, I would suggest that there is STILL no privacy issue (as you presented it).
Photos of giant dongles are posted every day all over the internet.
Granted...The equivalent photos inside somebody's house would be of things capable of being viewed from adjacent public property and that are a danger to the home owner, the surrounding homes/residents, and anybody the home owner might sell the home to.
Guys, you are really stretching this pretty far to justify what the tech did.
I read that sub. The whole point of /r/justrolledintotheshop is to call out stupid crap that techs see show up in their shop. Every post is basically prefaced with "Look at this stupidity!" whether it is put on there or not.
People seem to think they are anonymous on the Internet and can just do whatever they want, but things end up staying out there forever. Like this guy thinks he can delete his Reddit post, but of course he can't.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150409193439/http://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/31x3ot/a_slap_in_the_face/
He took a full picture of the truck and posted it along with the problem. The truck is not some stock truck.
http://imgur.com/a/S4rj5
The truck is easily identifiable to anyone on the Internet that knows the owner and as of now there are 3000+ views on that album.
Regardless of whatever laws are in place it's a dick move for the tech to post something like that. He is basically giving the appearance of publicly calling out the owner on his stupidity, whether that was his intent or not.
dean1484 wrote: So to sum this up what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Actually, think it was "too much communication" that caused the problem here.
As to the situation itself, I have no real sympathy for either side. On one hand, if I was employer, this might fall under the general category of "don't do stupid stuff that will cause me problems". If this was a first offense, I'd warn the tech and maybe give him a few days off without pay and call it good. If brodozer and friends complained, I'd tell them to get lost. NO ONE is going to tell me how I can't and can't discipline my own employee. If this was stupidity offense number 2 or more, the tech would be gone.
The one thing that really offends me about this whole situation is brodozer's friends throwing around rape suggestions like rape is some sort of sporting event. As a prosecutor, my life experiences involve meeting young women who have been deconstructed as human beings as a result of rape. I've also had the experience of trying to coax a 6 year old out from under the witness chair in court so she could tell a room full of complete strangers the horrible things her step dad had done to her. Believe me when I tell you there is nothing funny about that. If, in any way, brodozer contributed to that part of the discussion, the tech should notify the USAF so brodozer can begin seeking a new career. Anyone who would contribute to that kind of discussion is a waste of oxygen IMHO.
BTW - the fact that you all have the sense not to sling that kind of stupidity around (even when you vehemently disagree with each other) is one of the reasons I still come here.
/rant
In reply to Harvey:
I would have called out that owner's stupidity for just the lift and wheel/tires.....you can fix stupid, and I think the exhaust shop that allegedly "berkeleyed up the exhaust" was trying to do a public service by sending this guy out in a fireball.
You'll need to log in to post.
