View Full Version : Ok this video cant be legal...(mothership content)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmbog3QJUzk&feature=related
This can't be legal. How can he post that, having recorded a conversation secretly, then play it back in public? That don't seem to kosher
jocko
05-28-2011, 04:05 PM
personally this guy is a complete di-k. How would you like to talk to people like this half of ur day every day. Ihave nbo issues withhim recoridng it but making it now public shows to me he is indeed a di-k.. In some states this could indeed be illegal.
jlottmc
05-28-2011, 04:19 PM
I think that this guy might have come here and then went looking for a fight, personally, I heard nothing from Jay that sounded untoward. This guy got a little mouthy at the end, but then again, he had already cut the phone off. As for posting it, meh that was 8:09 that I'll not see again.
Dietrich
05-28-2011, 04:27 PM
I haven`t figured out what this guy`s gripe was with Kahr`s service.It`s a wonder Jay didn`t lapse into a coma listening to this bird.I think I`ll go down to the harbor and watch the planks on the dock warp.It would be more interesting than this guy`s videos.What a tool.
jlottmc
05-28-2011, 04:38 PM
That dear Dietrich, was what I was thinking, but not going to say up front. I get the feeling that this guy does come around here, and well I have little to pick a fight over for the moment anyway.
jocko
05-28-2011, 04:44 PM
He just wanted to make a video to show everyoe what a di-k he was. I think he succeeded IMO. I also think he was making up alot ashe went on with his verbage to. A troll is a troll is a troll is a troll. He probablyt has been a pswt now banned kahr talk person.
We are spending myself included, to way to much time on this a-hole.
BuckeyeBlast
05-28-2011, 04:52 PM
I didn't spend the 8 mins to listen to what you describe as a d-bag, but did anyone watch the part 2 "Redemption" video?
Bill K
05-28-2011, 04:55 PM
On a positive note Kahr gets it fixed and back in 1 week. Range test no failures!
Depending on what states are involved he may be perfectly legal...
"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.
At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy."
Bill K.
Now thats clarification!
With one addition -
Currently, no federal, state, or local law prohibits being a ****.
jlottmc
05-28-2011, 05:20 PM
Now as a CJ student let me ask you this: as with most customer service operations, they will throw a disclaimer that the call you make to them may be recorded for training purposes. Would that be sufficient to satisfy requirements for consent if I call and plan to do the taping?
Bill K
05-28-2011, 05:33 PM
Now as a CJ student let me ask you this: as with most customer service operations, they will throw a disclaimer that the call you make to them may be recorded for training purposes. Would that be sufficient to satisfy requirements for consent if I call and plan to do the taping?
Here is a link to a site covering "Phone Recording Laws"... http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law.htm.
Bill K.
jlottmc
05-28-2011, 05:42 PM
That didn't answer my question. I'll look it up later.
Longitude Zero
05-28-2011, 05:59 PM
One party consent pretty much covers it. Also when your are recording a customer service agent you are recording an agent of the company and therefore the company, not th eperson.
It hinges on whether the other party has any legal expectation of privacy. No customer service agent has any expectation of privacy. Especially so if their company also records conversations for training and/or quality assurance.
BTW the guy is a tool.
JimBianchi
05-28-2011, 06:10 PM
Every state is different. I'd have to know where it was was record to determine if a crime was committed.
If done across state lines, the Feds could be involved.
I think if Kahr sent a cease and desist letter to get it pulled. Youtube may pull it if they ask them to.
Kahr doesn't state that the calls "may be recorded"
HighSpeedBail
05-28-2011, 06:35 PM
Okay I watched the videos.
I would love to know what industry this guy works in because clearly he has no idea how things work in a technical/customer support setting.
Kahr has standard operating procedures which list exactly how to handle each scenerio. Clearly this guy had an agenda, he needs to understand that people aren't freaking mind readers.
Sometimes in life if you want a problem resolved a specific way you have to speak up. If Kahr had everyone send back every gun that had a couple FTF then no one would get their gun back in 1 to 2 weeks.
In my mind the agent handled the situation appropriately but this guy wanted to be a drama queen about it. He really should change his youtube name to Drama Queen bc it suits him much better.
Ken
Certainly the need to quickly ascertain if there is a safety issue, or just a functional issue, try and mitigate the functional ones, and take in all the safety issues, plus those functional problems that are not user correctable (easy part swap)
Dietrich
05-28-2011, 09:00 PM
Whoa fellas.Hang on a minute.We`re better than this.True,the guy ain`t my cup of tea but we ain`t got no business reverting to name calling like we`ve been doing.Just goes to show you we can get a little cantankerous ourselves if we don`t watch it.Chill baby.Mellow...
OldLincoln
05-28-2011, 10:15 PM
His experience matches what we read here on a regular basis. New gun leads to gripe, leads to call, leads to gripe about shipping, leads to getting it back with apprehension, leads to shooting it and reporting good job.
I just wish CS could cut out the middle gripes saying they'd love to get it back and fix it right. Of course their original products seem to be improving in quality on a regular basis, so I'm convinced they are addressing things and want to get it right the first time.
Just think if they were consistently great out the door and CS slowed down the rep might turn with it. Like to make "Maytag Repairmen" out of them all.
BuckeyeBlast
05-29-2011, 11:21 AM
Watched all 3 vids. Yeah, I've got to admit- the guy is a little bit weird and his expectations of mind reading are a little high, but his experience is mostly consistent w/ mine. P380 problems and I had to fight to get Kahr to take the pistol back. I think he's a little bitchy for complaining about the return procedure when he was still able to get it wrapped up in one phone call, but still understand where he's coming from as it's taken me almost a year and half a dozen phone calls to get Kahr to take the pistol back.
I sent my P380 back last Friday before leaving for vacation. I'm on my way back home today, so I haven't gotten it back yet. I'm hoping my experience will end as successfully as his. :fingerscrossed:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.