Login

[Nick_714]

Does anyone know about this ? I am currently using a DAD device with my laptop ( webcam on top ) . Do I need to buy a separate webcam ?

Do they required a webcam on the Bar 97 as well or just Bar OIS ?

[elcamino73]

That’s crazy. This crap cannot be legal or Constitutional.

[No One]

The cam has to be able to be hand held.

[BIGDAWG58]

THIS HAS TO CHALLENGED IN COURT. IF WE ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS WE SHOULD BE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE, WITH PAY AND BENEFITS. THE STATE UNION WOULD NEVER ALLOW THIS IN THEIR OFFICES WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THEM TO VIDEO RECORD US?

[RonsterM™]

This CAM proposal has been tabled by the BAR and will no longer be a requirement. However, the Bio-metric scanner is still a must.

• September 19, 2022: Biometric enrollment online appointment scheduling begins
• October 1, 2022: Biometric enrollment begins
• November 2022: BAR-OIS biometric software update available
• March 2023: Tentative mandatory start date for biometric palm scanner usage

• This reply was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by RonsterM™.

[RonsterM™]

SMOG CHECK EQUIPMENT SECURITY AND FRAUD PREVENTION

[RonsterM™]

Don’t mark my words on the CAM as of yet fella’s, I am in communications with the DCA/BAR regarding this
Proposed action. I am hearing different things from different people.

[RonsterM™]

Direct message from Paul Hedglin at the DCA Regarding WebCam Requirments for Smog Stations:

“The 2021 Smog Check Manual, page 26 (https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/regulatory-actions/equipment-security-2021/approved-manual.pdf) that became effective regulation on 10/1/2022 includes a requirement for a webcam for both the BAR-OIS and the BAR-97 EIS inspection systems. Although a requirement exists to have webcams, we have not started designing the remote access software functionality to use a web cam and it will be a long time before we get there. There is no need to get webcams anytime soon. OPUS is correct that the implementation has been tabled. But incorrect that a requirement does not exist.”

[elcamino73]

This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

why the hell is any of this biometric nonsense even needed?

are there a lot of people who are signing in to do smogs using someone else’s credentials?

I never heard of anyone receiving a citation for signing in under someone’s technician license.

 

You hear a lot of about people getting citations for passing an undercover vehicle with missing emissions devices, but never heard about anyone getting one for signing in as someone else. If that is true then there is no justification to require us to do something that rarely if ever happens while giving up our rights under the US constitution. I swear to god we are turning more into a police state  every single day.

• This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by elcamino73.

[BIGDAWG58]

IT’S BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES AS THEY ARE TOLD. IF WE ALL SAID NO WANT COULD THEY DO? PROBLEM IS A BACK BONE. I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO A LAWYER ABOUT THIS CRAB.

 

[elcamino73]

Any state agency in California  can be sued by private citizens by filing a claim:

Link to state website:

Suing the Government or a Public Agency

I’m thinking about starting some kind of union or industry association to represent the interests and rights of smog shops in California.  Smog shops or techs who want to join can pay a monthly fee. Fees will help pay for legal advice and representation for actions against these abuses. All funds collected and how they are spent would be completely open and transparent.

The state can screw us over because they know as individuals we don’t have the resources or collective ability to fight back. That is why we need some kind of  group to represent us.

 

 

 

 

• This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by elcamino73.
• This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by elcamino73.

[elcamino73]

by the way, was there ever a public hearing held on the biometric proposal before it went into effect so people could comment or object to it? or did they just ram it through to prevent anyone from stopping it?

[elcamino73]

The new OIS update includes a legal disclaimer that says we have no expectation of privacy as shop owners and technicians. I would dispute that. As a private business i believe have an expectation of privacy or at least a degree of privacy. We are not employed by the state, and they are not our employer.

If you worked in an office as an employee for the state of California then you do not have an expectation of privacy. Just as if you worked for a private (or public employer) they can require, for example a biometric scanner for you to enter the building. But we are not employed by the state.

 

If there is no expectation of privacy then where does it end? if a few smog techs find a way to defeat the biometric scanners (which has been shown can be easily done by using silly putty for example to make an impression of your fingerprints) will they then require all technicians to submit to DNA blood testing to do a smog check? And force us to buy expensive DNA testing equipment ? This is just crazy nonsense.

[Author]

Posts