[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by remeeno

You probably missed this part I previously posted:

"Arizona code 13-2923 makes it illegal to use an electronic or GPS device to continuously surveil a person for over 12 hours without authorization."

nope, I didn’t miss it. note what I bolded above. you haven’t shown proof that you were under surveillance unknowingly by the device that was lawfully installed on the lessor’s vehicle.

[tooloud10]

I'm gathering that some don't care for the OP's tone but I don't think that dismisses the concern here. If I sell your wife a used car and you find a tracking device attached to it, would you accept my explanation that I simply forgot it was there and that I wasn't using it to track your wife's location?

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

nope, I didn’t miss it. note what I bolded above. you haven’t shown proof that you were under surveillance unknowingly by the device that was lawfully installed on the lessor’s vehicle.

I would think that finding the device and having the knowledge of how it got there would be enough in the eyes of the law. I would be surprised to learn that I could place a GPS tracker onto someone's car and not be breaking the law as long as I didn't actively use it to track someone for more than 12 hours at a time.

[nZtiZia]

sure I’d be concern, and I concurred he has every right to be concerned, but as far as what’s been demonstrated, no privacy or anti-stalking laws have been broken per the Arizona clause provided by the OP. while I’m no lawyer, his concern will likely not hold in criminal court. even civil court is meh.

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

nope, I didn’t miss it. note what I bolded above. you haven’t shown proof that you were under surveillance unknowingly by the device that was lawfully installed on the lessor’s vehicle.

So now that we cleared the "ownership" argumentation, we can get to the next atempt.
OK. Glad we agreed on the lessor not being the owner.

"You have not shown proof"
Judging by previous responses I wouldn't bet on you having passed any bar exams, so how could you tell they are not there already?

"under surveillance"
Mentioned it before.
The tracking device is not used for baking bread or skin rejuvenation but for monitoring several details of a/ my vehicle's activity.
My X5 hasn't been a self driving vehicle since day 1 and it requires me to drive it - therefore the tracking device monitors where, when, for how long, how often, an so on, I make any trips.

"unknowingly"
there was no disclosure of any kind, hence this thread and many other threads mentioning similar findings. I have the lease agreement in paper and electronic format and neither includes a disclosure.

"lawfully installed" lol
just typing the word lawfully, that does not make the stealership's action as such.
I do not care whether it was lawfully installed at the time the vehicle was on the dealer's lot, this is not the topic here.
The issue in discussion is the presence and their use of said GPS tracking device, without my knowledge, while I was leasing the vehicle.

The law (as in "lawfully") reads the following:

Arizona code 13-2923
Stalking; classification; exceptions; definitions

A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct causes the victim to:
1. Suffer emotional distress or......
......
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Course of conduct":
(a) Means directly or indirectly, in person or through one or more third persons or by any other means, to do any of the following:
.......
(ii) Use any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or.........for twelve hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, without authorization.

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

sure I’d be concern, and I concurred he has every right to be concerned, but as far as what’s been demonstrated, no privacy or anti-stalking laws have been broken per the Arizona clause provided by the OP. while I’m no lawyer, his concern may not fly in criminal court. civil court, maybe.

If you are not lawyer how could you classifying potential causes?
Based on what?

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by remeeno

So now that we cleared the "ownership" argumentation, we can get to the next atempt.
OK. Glad we agreed on the lessor not being the owner.

"You have not shown proof"
Judging by previous responses I wouldn't bet on you having passed any bar exams, so how could you tell they are not there already?

"under surveillance"
Mentioned it before.
The tracking device is not used for baking bread or skin rejuvenation but for monitoring several details of a/ my vehicle's activity.
My X5 hasn't been a self driving vehicle since day 1 and it requires me to drive it - therefore the tracking device monitors where, when, for how long, how often, an so on, I make any trips.

"unknowingly"
there was no disclosure of any kind, hence this thread and many other threads mentioning similar findings. I have the lease agreement in paper and electronic format and neither includes a disclosure.

"lawfully installed" lol
just typing the word lawfully, that does not make the stealership's action as such.
I do not care whether it was lawfully installed at the time the vehicle was on the dealer's lot, this is not the topic here.
The issue in discussion is the presence and their use of said GPS tracking device, without my knowledge, while I was leasing the vehicle.

The law (as in "lawfully") reads the following:

Arizona code 13-2923
Stalking; classification; exceptions; definitions

A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct causes the victim to:
1. Suffer emotional distress or......
......
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Course of conduct":
(a) Means directly or indirectly, in person or through one or more third persons or by any other means, to do any of the following:
.......
(ii) Use any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or.........for twelve hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, without authorization.

you do not understand. lessor is the owner. lessee (you) are not the owner. I will continue to stress my points:
1) while the device was in the leased vehicle without your knowledge, there is no proof it was tracking you despite its designed purpose. you cannot dismiss the fact they may have deactivated its tracking capability without your knowledge. (if so, this thread wouldn’t even exist, no?)
2) they didn’t need your authorization. it’s their vehicle, not yours.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

sure I’d be concern, and I concurred he has every right to be concerned, but as far as what’s been demonstrated, no privacy or anti-stalking laws have been broken per the Arizona clause provided by the OP. while I’m no lawyer, his concern will likely not hold in criminal court. civil court, maybe.

That is correct. There is only one plausible explanation for that tracking device to be there and that is that it was not taken off as part of PDI when the vehicle left the dealer's inventory. There is no other reason that could be logically argued for it being there. Besides that, there is no proof that tracking occurred.

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by remeeno

If you are not lawyer how could you classifying potential causes?
Based on what?

I am not here to describe the discovery process should you decide to seek litigation. I’m just basing my deduction on all that you’ve quoted here where most don’t even help your point, legally.

I agree that you should be concerned. in that respect, I’m on your side, but just because you discovered a tracking device that was installed in a vehicle you don’t legally own, you have provided no proof that your privacy has been invaded without your knowledge, therefore, no law has been broken according to the Arizona clause you quoted.

[tooloud10]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

That is correct. There is only one plausible explanation for that tracking device to be there and that is that it was not taken off as part of PDI when the vehicle left the dealer's inventory.

No, that is *a* plausible explanation, not the *only* plausible explanation.

There is no other reason that could be logically argued for it being there. Besides that, there is no proof that tracking occurred.

You could just as easily argue that since the tracker is supposed to be removed at the time of delivery, the only plausible explanation for it being there is a rogue employee saw an opening to track the OP's family by using the dealer's device as cover.

Also "proof of tracking" seems to be an odd legal hurdle to clear for a victim of this potential crime.

I'm not sure the law would be interpreted the same as some others here, I can see that. It's true that the legal owner of a vehicle has the right to install this kind of thing, but I'm amazed that anyone thinks "shoot, we forgot to remove the tracker" is a legal defense for a defendant simply because they work for a car dealership.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

No, that is *a* plausible explanation, not the *only* plausible explanation.

You could just as easily argue that since the tracker is supposed to be removed at the time of delivery, the only plausible explanation for it being there is a rogue employee saw an opening to track the OP's family by using the dealer's device as cover.

Also "proof of tracking" seems to be an odd legal hurdle to clear for a victim of this potential crime.

I'm not sure the law would be interpreted the same as some others here, I can see that. It's true that the legal owner of a vehicle has the right to install this kind of thing, but I'm amazed that anyone thinks "shoot, we forgot to remove the tracker" is a legal defense for a defendant simply because they work for a car dealership.

I guess Santa Claus could have put it on there during his Christmas Eve rounds but that is not very likely either. How about we say the most plausible, very highly likely, or anything similar.

Not an odd hurdle at all, the law is very clear about that. The use of GPS for tracking is illegal so proof of tracking must be shown. If the device was deactivated when the vehicle left the dealer's inventory then no law was broken.

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

I am not here to describe to discovery process should you decide to seek litigation. I’m just basing my opinion on all that you’ve quoted here where most don’t even help your point.

I agree that you should be concerned. in that respect, I’m on your side, but just because you discovered a tracking device that was installed in a vehicle you don’t legally own, you have provided no proof that your privacy has been invaded without your knowledge, therefore, no law has been broken according to the Arizona clause you quoted.

Most of them help my point.

One can not prove the existence of a document (disclaimer) that I said - it does not exist. I theoretically could mark out and show the lease agreement but I don't see how would that stop user in repeating himself.

Can you provide a proof that the US president never sent you an official invite to an one-on-one dinner?
I don't think so.

I understand why you disregard the arguments. I am not looking for confirmation.
Making people aware of what is going on (raising the awareness), of the existence of actual laws who should regulate such issue and the stealerships' reaction to the matter here is good enough for me.

The exact purpose of this forum is discussing any kind of issues, not just singing along on the mfgr's play.

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

I guess Santa Claus could have put it on there during his Christmas Eve rounds but that is not very likely either. How about we say the most plausible, very highly likely, or anything similar.

Not an odd hurdle at all, the law is very clear about that. The use of GPS for tracking is illegal so proof of tracking must be shown. If the device was deactivated when the vehicle left the dealer's inventory then no law was broken.

That is an interesting approach, this time.

First time spelled that tracking is actually illegal and that it needs to be proved.

That is something I agree with. No one said it should not be proved, and it can be proved.

See, common ground exists!

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

you do not understand. lessor is the owner. lessee (you) are not the owner. I will continue to stress my points:
1) while the device was in the leased vehicle without your knowledge, there is no proof it was tracking you despite its designed purpose. you cannot dismiss the fact they may have deactivated its tracking capability without your knowledge. (if so, this thread wouldn’t even exist, no?)
2) they didn’t need your authorization. it’s their vehicle, not yours.

I don't think so, not at all!!

Lessor is not the owner - BMWFS is

It's not just me saying it! Check TurtleBoy's pov in this thread

When one wishes to purchase a bmw vehicle at the end of the lease, they have to SELL IT BACK to the stealership and then BUY IT from them (valid in many states). That clearly indicates the stealership DOES NOT OWN that vehicle - otherwise why would they need to purchase something they already own?

Moreover - one could return their lease, sell and re purchase it to ANY stealership not just to the one who issued the lease, you are not restricted - and the procedure is identical - one more proof that the initial lessor is NOT the owner!

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by remeeno

I don't think so, not at all!!

Lessor is not the owner - BMWFS is

It's not just me saying it! Check TurtleBoy's pov in this thread

We all realize you are here to argue, troll and trying to incite folks but at least make some effort rather than just coming back at folks. Lessor is the person/entity that owns the item and leases it out. BMWFS is the Lessor, the person who leases the vehicle is the lessee.

I would love to join the many others and put you on the ignore list but you could easily be mistaken by new posters as someone who is serious and they can be mislead/believe what you post. Thankfully that historically posters like you have either been banned or just go slink away when folks don't engage them, hopefully either of those happen soon.

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by remeeno

I don't think so, not at all!!

Lessor is not the owner - BMWFS is

It's not just me saying it! Check TurtleBoy's pov in this thread
…

I’ve always known BMWFS was the lessor in your case. it is you who assumed i meant the dealership (or whatever/whoever you thought).

awareness raised. thanks...

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

I’ve always known BMWFS was the lessor in your case. it is you who assumed i meant the dealership (or whatever/whoever you thought).

awareness raised. thanks...

Sure
"I know something I won't tell"



I never said I was the owner.

What I said was the *stealerlership* is not the owner therefore they are not entitled to install a tracking device on other entity's property!

TurtleBoy confirmed it

[ST3]

Originally Posted by remeeno

I stopped asking the stealership questions long time ago, pretty much the second time I interacted with them.
That is a pointless endeavor unless one's willing to settle for alternative truths.
If I need to find out whether the undisclosed GPS tracking device installed by them is lawful or not, asking them is futile.
Many had found similar devices installed on their vehicle. Not sure they fully understand that in such case, somebody else fiddles with their rights (if undisclosed).

Thank you for finally replying to me. The only thing I am asking for is “what was the response of the person you reached out to at the dealer”? Did they respond? If so, what was the response? Please be helpful. Some of us actually want to know what happened and learn from it. We can’t do that with the huge gap in info. What was asked and what was the response. What is the very next action you plan to take?

If they never responded and you gave up then there is nothing further to be gained/learned and I can move on.

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by ST3

Thank you for finally replying to me. The only thing I am asking for is “what was the response of the person you reached out to at the dealer”? Did they respond? If so, what was the response? Please be helpful. Some of us actually want to know what happened and learn from it. We can’t do that with the huge gap in info. What was asked and what was the response. What is the very next action you plan to take?

If they never responded and you gave up then there is nothing further to be gained/learned and I can move on.

What was the response to what question, please?

[ST3]

Originally Posted by remeeno

What was the response to what question, please?

Why did they deliver your vehicle with the tracking device installed? That question.

[arRod1981]

Originally Posted by remeeno

Sure
"I know something I won't tell"



I never said I was the owner.

What I said was the *stealerlership* is not the owner therefore they are not entitled to install a tracking device on other entity's property!

TurtleBoy confirmed it

But actually you DID say you owned the vehicle when you thought you were "correcting" omasou about who the owner was of the vehicle. Your exact words below...

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by arRod1981

But actually you DID say you owned the vehicle when you thought you were "correcting" omasou about who the owner was of the vehicle. Your exact words below...

You are missing the context in both situations, but I appreciate the effort to clear up things even if that's not related to the substance of this conversation.

1. In my reply to nZtiZia I mentioned I never claimed to be an owner while being in lease contract. That referred to the lessor lessee discussion. I tried to explain he is not the one understanding those terms and that is it ober-obvious the lessee does not own the vehicle.

while

2. The second statement in your screen shot is also correct.
I am the owner now, at the time of this conversation after I bought out the lease, and when I've discovered the device.

Does that make sense?

[STEALERHSIPS GONE SOON]

Originally Posted by ST3

Why did they deliver your vehicle with the tracking device installed? That question.

they never answered that, I suppose for exposure limiting reasons