[Vegas2.0T]

https://carbuzz.com/news/honda-refused-to-reveal-stolen-accords-location

All because the owner didn’t buy one feature.

Having your car stolen is one of the worst feelings in the world. The good news is that there are a lot of preventative and location finding technologies out there, many of which are offered directly from the automaker. There's only one hitch: you have to pay for them as extra features. On top of that, not every car buyer is made aware they even exist, let alone available for purchase. Such is the situation of Laydh Ablhd.

According to Global News, Ablhd purchased a new 2019 Honda Accord recently only to discover one morning it had been stolen from his driveway at around 5 a.m. Fortunately, video security footage from a neighbor's camera revealed the three thieves breaking in and driving away, and Ablhd immediately called the police. Both he and the police officer called Honda Canada after realizing there was a good possibility the stolen Accord could be tracked thanks to modern tech installed in the vehicle.

The good news is that they were correct. A Honda call center operator told Ablhd and the police officer he could see the Accord's location. The bad news? Because Ablhd did not purchase HondaLink, the operator refused to reveal the car's location – despite the fact this was also a police investigation. Honda Canada describes HondaLink as an "emergency response system… designed to get you the help you need when you need it most." HondaLink is also available in the US. Why didn't Ablhd buy HondaLink when he bought the car? Because the dealership didn't even mention it. "I would have bought it," he said if he had known its many benefits.

The police officer's pleas with HondaLink to reveal the car's location amounted to nothing, even after being transferred to a supervisor. "Get a warrant" was the supervisor's response. Ablhd, out of options, decided right then and there to pay $148 CAD for a HondaLink subscription but by then it was too late; the Accord's signal had disappeared.

Not only is Ablhd angry about the entire situation, he also doesn't plan to buy another Honda. Honda Canada, in response to a Global News inquiry, said proper protocols were followed.

"This customer did not have an active HondaLink subscription, which is required to locate the vehicle," a company spokesperson stated. "Without an active subscription, the police would have to present a warrant to activate the location services on the vehicle and no such warrant was provided. At no time was Honda or its HondaLink provider aware of the location of this vehicle."

On the plus side, Honda agreed to reimburse Ablhd the $148.
​

What do you guys think about this?

I'm kinda torn. Yeah customer should have purchased subscription, but at the same time if they have the location of the vehicle, good customer service should dictate to help the customer out especially after the customer explained the situation about not knowing about HondaLink.

My dealership never went over HondaLink with me either.

 

[DARKART]

Seems like proper protocol was followed. In this case, Honda owns the information and is not required to divulge said information to non-subscribers. Further the vehicle owner claims he wasn’t aware of HondaLink, yet he contacted that very entity for location of his vehicle. The owner wanted something for free. Possible scumbag.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

I'd call it obstruction of justice. I'm sure the insurance company and the police could convince Honda to cough up the info.

Indeed, per the article, Honda went all "lawyer":
"Without an active subscription, the police would have to present a warrant to activate the location services on the vehicle and no such warrant was provided. At no time was Honda or its HondaLink provider aware of the location of this vehicle."

Honda Canada, IMO, are being arses about this. So to punish them I'll double my car payment this week. (I pay every 2 weeks).

[Full disclosure: I pretty much double my car payments month to month with some exceptions...]

And while you may feel "he didn't pay for the service", that service is much more than theft location detection. And if it weren't for the crappy theft deterrence in place[1], the car would likely not have been stolen...

[1] Article: "Fortunately, video security footage from a neighbor's camera revealed the three thieves breaking in and driving away,"

 

[RickBlaine]

Article written and edited by contradicting chimps.

1) "A Honda call center operator told Ablhd and the police officer he could see the Accord's location."

vs.

2) Honda Canada, in response to a Global News inquiry, said proper protocols were followed.

"This customer did not have an active HondaLink subscription, which is required to locate the vehicle," a company spokesperson stated. "Without an active subscription, the police would have to present a warrant to activate the location services on the vehicle and no such warrant was provided. At no time was Honda or its HondaLink provider aware of the location of this vehicle."

Is Honda supposed to give out info to any clown who calls up and asks? What if that person is a crazed ex-boyfriend looking to kill his former girlfriend and her puppy as they escape his evil grasp? Riddle me that, Batman....

 

[glen e]

Virtually all manufacturers will not tell the owner where the car is. That’s standard procedure, and they will only tell the police when there is a police report is filed and can be displayed. The reason is simple. Owners lie. There are countless instances when this first came out where they told the owner where the car was, and it was just a track down a cheating wife/husband. Manufactures don’t wanna get it in in the middle anymore so legally they just release the information to the police.

 

[emeron]

On one hand Honda is a for-profit company, and if they reveal the car's location for free that would be unfair to those who paid; also on the same hand Honda does not have a duty to assist the investigation without a court order as there is no imminent danger to life.

What if this was a hostage/kidnapping situation? Discuss.

 

[DARKART]

I'd call it obstruction of justice. I'm sure the insurance company and the police could convince Honda to cough up the info.

“Obstruction”? How so? No entity is required to divulge protected assets during an official investigation in absence of a warrant or subpoena.


@RickBlaine I would imagine the call center operator never told the caller he could see the location of the vehicle, but he said he could after verifying his subscription, which could not be done.

 

[enne]

The owner claimed they were not made aware that HondaLink was even an available service, otherwise they would have purchased it. So them not having it to use it kind of makes it a moot argument point as they didn't even know it was a "thing". The responding police officer seems to have been the one to make the connection that the car had tracking capabilities. They even purchased the service in order to try and find their stolen car. That solidifies to me that they weren't trying to get anything "for free".

I don't think needing a warrant to turn this on is necessary. If the police call and say turn it on, turn it on. I'm sure a warrant could have been given later if they really need it for some kind of paperwork protocol. A police report was already filed, so what's the big deal? If it were me, a police officer on the phone, who could verify their identity, that would be enough for me to give the OK to turn that service on for 5 minutes for that car (which I'm sure costs Honda next to nothing), and locate the car.

The police don't need a warrant to view a person's cell phone location in an emergency (missing person, etc.), which is a much more private piece of info than where a car is located... In fact, it is given out freely to any service that has permission on that device. Police can access that info in moments if someone's missing.

Why you have to pay over $150 to have it for your brand new car boggles my mind.

When I did Progressive's Snapshot discount service, I had an OBD-II device plugged into my car that sent a cell signal to Progressive to record the car's data. It cost me $0 to have this thing active in my car; obviously they were collecting data, but the point of having that data sent to them was to get me a discount on my insurance premium. I can't imagine HondaLink is much more than a small device that constantly sends a GPS signal to them. It's probably already installed and sending a signal in every car that has it as an option, you're just paying $150+ to be able to view that data that's already being sent to them.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

“Obstruction”? How so? No entity is required to divulge protected assets during an official investigation in absence of a warrant or subpoena.

If you are a witness to a crime or are in possession of information about a crime you're legally obligated to report it.[1]

Honda are weaselling out by saying they don't know where it is because there's no subscription. Obviously the moral thing to do is light it up and try to located the car. Instead they're hiding behind a contract. Further, as I pointed out, if their theft deterrence was any good, this wouldn't happen in the first place.

An additional thought: Honda want $160/year for a raft of services not many people actually want. Why not a $20 / year "car location" service. People would go for that w/o the other frills. I would.

It would cost Honda virtually nothing to help out here. And the goodwill they would get far outweighs any costs or concessions.

[1] Whatever other consequences of this might harm you do not apply in this case, so let's not go there.

On one hand Honda is a for-profit company, and if they reveal the car's location for free that would be unfair to those who paid; also on the same hand Honda does not have a duty to assist the investigation without a court order as there is no imminent danger to life.

What if this was a hostage/kidnapping situation? Discuss.

Well 'perfesser, it is a major crime, therefore Honda should assist and IMO must assist w/o even a warrant.

Secondly - as I point above a) their theft deterrence doesn't work, so , yeah, moral obligation. and b) their Honda Link service is an expensive blivet of many things, one of which is car location. I'd pay $20 a year for that alone but it is not offered - they want to profit on the 'larger' package that is pretty useless to me and many others.

So given the 'void' in their services (poor theft deterrent and not offering the single useful thing Honda Link offers) I'd say, yes indeed, morally obligated and if not legally obligated absent a warrant, then they should think about goodwill a little harder.

As to your scenario, if that's what it might take to move Honda, then the theft of a major piece of property should move them too.

 

[enne]

What if this was a hostage/kidnapping situation? Discuss.

If there was a person or people in the car, the police could instantly access those people's cell phone locations. The police do not need a warrant for that information in an emergency.

They'd be in very hot water with the media and the public's opinion if that were the case and they did this same thing. No one's life is worth $150.

Also, stealing a car is a felony in most states, soooo not sure why they think it's okay to just let thieves get away with a felony because the owner didn't know they had to pay $150 in advance just to find their stolen car.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

Is Honda supposed to give out info to any clown who calls up and asks? What if that person is a crazed ex-boyfriend looking to kill his former girlfriend and her puppy as they escape his evil grasp? Riddle me that, Batman....

Honda could request the officer to present himself at a Honda dealership with his badge of office and the victim carrying proof of id and ownership. The dealership could verify the creds to both the cop and Honda Canada. This is pretty basic, really.

Full disclosure: I didn't call Batman for help with this riddle as it's way beneath his pay grade.

If there was a person or people in the car, the police could instantly access those people's cell phone locations.

True, but any kidnapper worth his salt would immediately strip the 'assets' of their tags and put them on a bus going the other direction ...

My e-mail to Honda Canada follows:

Regarding the article:
globalnews.ca/news/6263649/honda-stolen-car-hondalink/amp/
December 6 2019.

1) HondaLink offers many services that are of absolutely no interest to anyone, esp. me.
2) However, I would be interested, for a nominal fee, to have car location services alone, w/o the other claptrap. $20 per year sounds about right.
3) Since the theft deterrence system on Honda Accord's is not able to actually prevent theft, IMO you had a MORAL obligation to assist the police and Mr. Ablhd in the locating of his vehicle w/o compelling the production of a warrant.

Wake up and smell your moral obligations and the disappearance of goodwill.

Long time Honda owner.
Giving that a re-think, however.

 

[DARKART]

Generally speaking, most people are under no legal obligation to report a crime, whether they knew about it in advance, witnessed its commission, or found out about it after the fact. There are exceptions based on the crime in question and some people whom are “mandatory reporters”.

Your MORALs are not law.

Missing persons cases present an unusual problem for police -- it's not a crime to disappear. Without a crime, police can't get a search warrant. In a criminal case, no warrant would mean no phone records for authorities. Missing persons investigators rely on phone companies to release customers' location information voluntarily. The companies require a statement from police that the phone owner may be in danger.

The government does not have the right to look at your cellular telephone records.

 

[AlanTheBeastV2]

Generally speaking, most people are under no legal obligation to report a crime, whether they knew about it in advance, witnessed its commission, or found out about it after the fact. There are exceptions based on the crime in question and some people whom are “mandatory reporters”.

Your MORALs are not law.

• Under section 22 of the Criminal Code of Canada, if an individual has an awareness of a crime because they have witnessed the crime or have been told that the crime has occurred, and by not reporting this crime to the police service or other relevant agency, this individual is in some way aiding or abetting the crime to take place, they may be charged with counselling an offence.
• Conviction of an offence under s.22 would result in a criminal record.
• It is quite rare for someone to be charged under s.22.

Morals are morals. Honda obviously could stand some.

Do you want to buy a car from a company that will help you in your time of need or hide behind a protocol?

 

[DARKART]

I buy the car I like, I don’t care to look into a company’s values. Once you start looking at those that only agree with you, you’ll be doing without.

In the US, we have a founding principle of a non-intrusive government and the laws must be balanced with the Constitution, which puts individual rights (mostly) above.

 

[glanzera21]

I think of myself as a moral person so normally I would side on the consumer but in this case I can't. My dear old mom used to read me a book called "if you give a mouse a cookie".

If Honda helps this guy out, why would anyone purchase the service again knowing that they don't need to and can still benefit from it?

 

[xoneatom]

If they released the information, of which they have every right to withhold, what stops others from doing the same thing everytime their car gets stolen? You can't purchase a policy just whenever you need to file a claim.

 

[qman]

How much is a new Honda these days? Quarter million nearly. Eff Honda. For the price of cars these days there should be no extras to pay for.

 

[xoneatom]

How much is a new Honda these days? Quarter million nearly. Eff Honda. For the price of cars these days there should be no extras to pay for.

You're not required to pay for additional services to own and operate the car. Honda saw a business opportunity to offer theft recovery, much like any other insurance policies. The cost of an equipment does not supersede the need for premium services (music services, TV services, etc)

 

[glanzera21]

How much is a new Honda these days? Quarter million nearly. Eff Honda. For the price of cars these days there should be no extras to pay for.

I suppose when you own your own car company, you're more than welcome to give it all away for free.

This is irrelevant but these secondary services and things like parts, financing etc. are really the only way that Honda and other automakers make money today. The margins on new cars are thinner than ever because of labor costs and the complexity of modern vehicles.

 

[2Accordz]

Keep in mind, these systems are in place, for the most part, to protect the owner/driver in case of an accident, or in some cases, vehicle location services, if the car is stolen.
However, most of the manufacturers are now requiring that the owner sign a waiver if it is NOT activated at the dealership upon delivery...Audi and VW have been doing this for years.
Part of most of these waivers are that the manufacturer "may in certain circumstances, work with police to find the driver(owner) if they've committed a felony, and the police need to find the car...." but they won't work with police to simply get the car back, if that makes sense.

That's what products such as Lojack are for, in a nutshell.
In this case, it is upon the purchaser to read the rules of their(Honda's) telematics system.

Sounds like the guy(or the salesman) forgot to read the document.