Slashdot Mirror
Rental Car Companies Watching By Satellite, Again
tlcruiser writes: "The Arizona Daily Star reports that Budget Rent-A-Car companies in Arizona have used satellite tracking systems to track customers' use without notifying customers. They have used the tracking system to issue fines to their customers. Several customers are suing Budget for the invasion of privacy." When ACME Rent-a-Car did this in Connecticut, it was found improper by that state's Department of Consumer Protection. This time, the monitoring is not only of speed, but also of whether renters are staying within contractually allowed driving territories.
This is yet another travesty for our rights. If the government continues to help large corporations like this to spy on us, well .. George Orwell might just have been correct.
With this and all the other tracking, we are no more than agents on a giant grid of numbers, slowly being calculated away to oblivion.
They charge exorbiant amounts of money and they are jackasses to you every step of the way. This is just another way for them to get money. Jackasses.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...for protecting the property that they own.
I suppose one also must sue the cable companies, should they detect that you've split your cable feed so that you can share it with twenty of your neighbours; the scooter rental company at the beach, for putting a speed limiter on the bike; and the local theatre, for not letting you bring in your video camera.
Yes, how terrible it is that the owner of a car might wish to ensure that it's not being used illegally.
How's this for an idea: you wanna break the speed limits or travel tens of thousands of kilometers, you buy your own car, and quit using someone else's car.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
In my experience as a hiker, it takes very little to prevent a GPS receiver from obtaining a good lock. Now, I suppose these companies *could* literally track the cars by satellite, ala LoJack, but far more likely they just have a GPS receiver in the vehicle together with a transmitter that "calls home" every few minutes to report a position.
So, for the EE geeks out there, what would it take to block (or render unintelligible) either signal, the GPS in or the position reporting out? Would this take an active device, or would some sort of hack as simple as wrapping the antenna in grounded metal foil work?
Just a thought. I don't suppose this would actually work, the corporate scum probably have a clause in the contract that "if your car doesn't report home at least once per hour, we automatically charge you the maximum of every fine we can possibly think of."
GPS is a one-way technology only... so does the system communicate stats in real-time over some other wireless data net to the company? Or does it store GPS position data in a buffer that's only later reviewed when the car is returned? If so, one just needs to clear the buffer somehow; I'm sure a hacker will figure it out.
;)
In any case, I suspect that the system gets power from the car's electrical system, in which case, finding the right fuse to pull should be sufficient...
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Unfortunately the companies own the cars, and they are simply 'licensing' (no pun intended) them to the consumers. This is similar to software these days. For instance with windowsXP, you buy the rights to use the software but do not own it. Microsoft in turn can do whatever they want just like the car companies do whatever they want.
In both cases trampelling on people's rights seems to be normal and accepted.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
I don't really understand the problem with this practice. It is Budget's vehicles, and it should be their right to protect them both from theft and improper use. They are defending their investment. Doing so will decrease their liability and in turn decrease the cost of service.
Of course, all of this should be stated clearly in the contract and terms of use.
And for the privacy nuts: that car isn't yours, so get off of it.
As usual seems many people did not read the article. The lawsuit is NOT about tracking the individuals in their vehicles (though the article does play that aspect up). The lawsuit is about wording in the contract. Specifically that the renters thought it was $1/mile in the "out of bounds" area and Budget charged them $1/mile on their whole trip. Having not actually seen the contract, I cannot comment on whose right, but this leads to the point.
Companies make rules, if you don't like the rules, then don't buy from them. If you are willing to accept the rules, then you must also be willing to accept the methods used to enforce those rules. Otherwise the rule is pointless.
Now, many people may get upset becuase they previously took advantage of the fact that the company couldn't enforce the rule accurately. But those people have no right to complain. They got lucky and their luck has run out.
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow privacy in a rented vehicle. It's their vehicle, they can do what they want. It is not your vehicle. In the same way that if I was to loan my car to a friend, it is still my vehicle, and if I want to monitor what my friend does with the car, I can. And yes, I would expect my friend to pay for any damages he inflicts on the vehicle as well. Again, if you don't like it, don't rent it.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember, the suit doesn't allege that monitoring is improper. After all, people have the right to give up privacy just as they have the right to privacy. Without the ability to give up some of our rights, we couldn't make binding contracts (ie without the threat of repossession -- burgalary in a different context -- who would offer credit to high-risk borrowers?) The lawsuit alleges consumers weren't properly notified. If the language of the contract is changed, the threat of lawsuits ends (well, the current suit continues, but future ones are avoided).
So what will happen? Businesses have the power to put these things in the contract and make the penalties for driving too fast or out of area clear to the customer. Most customers will be willing to forego their positional privacy in return for the car. Those who intend to speed or drive out of area will use non-monitoring rental agencies. These in turn will find themselves stuck with the worst customers, the ones who put their vehicles at risk. Most will probably switch to monitoring, though some may simply charge high rental rates and cater to this customer base.
The outcome: Absent new laws to restrict monitoring, most customers will be monitored and fined when they screw up. Knowing this, fewer customers will speed or drive out of area, reducing rental rates (rental agencies would like to simply pocket the profits from safer driving, but since so much competition exists in the industry prices in most mid-sized or larger areas will probably fall). The risky drivers will pay extra for the privilege to speed and drive where they want without monitoring. Everyone wins -- the car companies have lower costs, the consumers pay more rational prices that reflect the value they place on speeding/privacy/unrestricted destination, and the highways get a very tiny bit safer due to reduced speeding.
This isn't Big Brother -- it's more like being a Nielsen family. Give up privacy for savings? Why deny me that right? This isn't a utopian future here, but it isn't dystopia either. We should really retain a sense of perspective here.
Make cheese not war 8:)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ya think?
You think maybe, just maybe, they have a right to keep track of their own property, and define the terms by which they'll let you use it? You don't like it, don't use their service. It's not like source code, that car cost them money to buy, it costs them money to keep running, and yes, it'll cost them money to replace.
Personally, I don't want them keeping this data, but while you're renting the car, they should be allowed to keep it, and if you speed, or go outside the area in the contract, you pay the price for your violation. Then again, I wouldn't mind if half the cars in the world were taken off the road anyway. Too many people are too stupid to drive.
"Block the signal", my ass. Pop the fuse out of the GPS. Put it back when you take the car back. Let the bastards try to figure that one out!
I'm no expert, but it seems that one of two things will happen:
1. As companies like ACME and budget start to use GPS to track their car's location/speed, there will be a small but inconsequential protest from consumers. Following the initial flurry of objections, other companies will see this as a potential source of revenue and will do it as well. Soon the practice of tracking customer whereabouts will become standard and given no alternative in the market, customers will just have to accept that whenever they rent a car, the company (and others, such as law enforcement or whomever) will know where the car is at all times.
2. As companies like ACME and budget start to use GPS to track their car's location, there will be an overwhelming outpouring of disgust and fury from the consumer, resulting in organized boycotts against the offending companies. Other companies, seeing that the public is outraged by the privacy invasion, will not track their customers for fear of losing business. The practice of tracking customer's whereabouts will not gain traction, and people will be free to drive cross-country to cheat on their spouses without fear of anyone finding out.
The question: Which scenario do you think is more likely, given what you know about modern-day America? Keep in mind that as we speak, an American citizen is being held under arrest indefinately by the government without charges being filed. Everyone knows it, but there is no rioting in the street.
I say if you wanna "get away from it all" in the near future, better walk.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
1. "But the rental company *OWNS* the car and wants to make sure it is not misused!"
Sure they own the car, but the importance of having personal privacy to the level where you are sure you are not being tracked/monitored wherever you drive outweighs the gains afforded by satellite tracking, even if the tracking is mentioned in an obscure location in the agreement. Keep in mind that car rental firms were somehow able to not go belly-up before they were able to track cars by satellite. It's not like the inability to use this technology will hamper their business.
Chances are that the judge and jury all drive cars and understand the balance of rights and values that hang in the balance here. The right to not having your every move monitored is more important than the rental company's right to protect its property. This was proven the last time such a court case came up -- the driver won the case and got the charges revoked.
2. "But the owner signed the contract for the car that said tracking was taking place! It's a CONTRACT!!"
This is not some clickthru license that enables the software owner to keep track of your IP address. Juries don't understand what that means. The auto rental company did not properly inform the driver of what they were doing and that was wrong. Even the your grandmother will understand this.
What I am trying to say is that this is an issue that even technophobes understand. The driver will win every time unless it was clearly explained that tracking was taking place.
I'd do it myself, but I already postd an uninformed rant in this story :(
3) Some other rental company will use this as a selling point, "We don't track you, we respect your privacy".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only the very wealthy and self-insured will be able to drive cars without GPS logging and remotely storing your position, velocity, and the time. Rates will be adjusted for forays into "unsafe" neighborhoods, parking outside of bars, etc.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Yet another case of consumers who think that their contracts shouldn't apply to them. Honestly, when are people going to get it into their heads that when they sign something, they'll be expected to keep their end of the deal? I'd think a lot more of their 'privacy concerns' if they didn't stand to weasel out of payments of thousands of dollars by bringing this suit.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Anybody that doesn't spend their savings on LNUX stock is clearly stupid!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This lawsuit is not against Budget, but from the article: The local Budget agency is a licensee of Budget Rent a Car Corp., which does not have control over local licensees' business practices, an official of the Lisle, Ill., company said.
Also, the corporate-run Budget locations use this technology for tracking stolen cars.
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
Parent suggests that we should perhaps buy a new car every time we take a plane flight to go on vacation.
This is a mark of a troll, but I have to admit, it was a good one.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
A simple solution for any privacy problems like this is implementing a system of two rates. You don't feel like having a rental car company looking over your shoulder, fine, pay a premium! Don't mind them looking over your shoulder, great, get a discount!
I suppose that due to our rather cheap nature everyone would opt for the latter choice thus making the system of two rates obsolete at introduction but at least you'd have a choice.
They may be able to track your position and speed with GPS, but how are they gonna know if you're getting a blow job from a $10 crack whore? You can still use the car in a drive by. It won't even stop you from turning your rental truck into a bomb.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
Since it's not in the contract, it's not prohibited to disconnect it, and there's only so many places to hide a GPS receiver with or without a cell phone or wireless modem for communications (if so equipped), the receiver has to be able to see the sky, so it shouldn't be too tough to find.
;)
"Hey, I was checking the oil/loading the trunk/finding my dropped M&M under the seat, and I saw this thing, black box or something, and it wasn't on the wiring diagrams of the car, and hey, how do I know it's not a bomb or something that terrorists planted in my car, so I disconnected it, yeah." Paranoia isn't against any law that I know of, and disconnecting something that's in the car and not in the contract can't be breaking the contract, can it? So, screw 'em
I rent the car, I bring it back to them, why should they care what happens in between as long as I bring it back in the same condition that I got it?
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
timothy, what are you doing with yourself? Please reconsider your current path, do you really want to be associated With CmdrTaco? He is not what you seek, just another incarnation of "The Man" who works to stifle competition and any attempts to challenge his authority and ego.
Notice the current moderation system and how it sucks so much, but any talk of it's short coming will be modded down.
In a true free society, short comings must be pointed out and discussed, but it appears slashdot in all its glory of being for rights, really isn't.
Once again, I ask you to reconsider only because of a favor you once did for me.
A concerned friend.
Lead and tungsten are used to shield radiation. Lead and other metals are starting to be used to shield cellular and other communications. So solve the problem.
Where are the gps and cellular transmitter/receivers located in the car, how to turn off the cellular (presumably a car phone), and how to block transmission to satellites via gps.
An engine compartment or trunk mounted transmitter can have a lead enclosure mounted over it, or disconnect from body, place in lead box to block signal.
A windshield mounted transmitter would be trickier. An external and internal lead plate would be needed to mount over both sides, external windshield and internal where the transmitter is mounted both need to be blocked.
So, solve the problem. Theories would be nice, but actual field testing with equipment is your assignment if you decide to accept it. This tape will self destruct in...
Bingo!
They own the car. It's their choice whether or not to monitor where that car is travelling.
You don't want to be "spied" on? Use your own car!
"Invasion of privacy", indeed. In your own car, perhaps, that YOU own. When driving someone ELSE's car.. that's an entirely different matter.
~j
My oldest buddy from college is a manager at Enterprise. Now this is the guy who was always the designated driver, rarely got drunk, honest abe, abd never said a harsh word about anyone. Token goody two shoes of my less than desirable crowd.
There is not week that goes by where he does not call me with some rental horror story. Usually ending up with him and the police looking for a rental that someone refuses to bring back. Or there is a wreck in another state with one of his cars that was rented for local use.
And the lists goes on. The company owns the car and does need some form of protection. I know if I owned anagency I would want tracking.
Again the model where you can pay less with the tracking device or pay more without is a good idea.
The reason the companies are doing this is the lack of responsibility of the renters to respect the car and the contract. And remember very few agencies rent to people under 25.
Puro
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Its their cars not yours. For all it matters they could put dice in the mirrors if they want.
If you don't like it, go with another company.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
...if someone were to rent one of these cars, and the GPS tracker suddenly was missing or broken.
Funny things happen to people and companies who try to fuck with other people.
I don't advocate this, it is wrong and no one should do it. But y'know, ya keep fucking with people and fucking with them and shit happens. Y'know?
so, when the RIAA/MPAA complain about P2P, and say how they want to tax certain things (blank CDs and the such) because people might pirate their music, almost everyone at slashdot complains because they are being "taxed" because they "might" be doing something illegal, but their not and the MPAA/RIAA should just be going after the violaters. A rental car company wants to enforce it's contract using GPS, without any proof of privacy violation, but slashdot community wants them to stop doing it because they "might" violate your privacy? Can we first wait to see a car rental company do something wrong before everyone wants take away their right to use technology?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
On the merits of this story. I believe this is within rental car companies rights. I think the only issue here is a contractual language dispute. Without the contract in front of me, I will conclude it's a valid dispute.
That said, citizen, protect thy self. Does anyone know of a "jammer" for GPS signals? I know from experience they are weak, and even a good receiver can be blocked by placing it in the wrong spot in a car or under an overpass, etc. It wouldn't take much signal to jam it. Would such a thing be legal? Is there a market for renting them at airport counters near the rental car counters?
Calif. Your are not allowed out of state except to Reno/Tahoe area, and if you exceed the speed limit they will fine you. It's on the contract and the attendant told us up front.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I commend you on your proper use of the word "effect".
In a land where too many slashtrollers can't even spell "you're" vs "your" correctly, it's nice to see somebody who knows one of the few times when effect is a verb.
Anybody who thinks this is sarcasm should instead reference a dictionary.
I don't like this tracking crap any more than anyone else, but... ...can someone explain to me how anyone as a renter, who signs an agreement about the boundary area of where they can drive a car has the right to violate that agreement, just because they don't agree with it?
Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you have the right to violate the agreement you've signed.
Here, rental car companies are using a GPS-based system to verify that you are not violating your agreement with them. Going on a bit of a tangent here, what if the apartment you rented had cameras in it to verify that you were not violating your landlord's rules? My apartment contract (done up by a big, multi-facility renting firm) states that I may not use the apartment I am in for any business purposes, and that they can kick me out for any breach in their contract. Theoretically, that means if I VPNed into my work network, I could lose my place to live.
Of course, my apartment contract also states that I cannot have anything "flammable" in the apartment, and only the apartment I know of with nothing flammable in it is an empty one, so maybe there is such a thing as going overboard. Still, the question remains as to how far parties will allow each other to supervise that agreements have not been broken, and in all cases, I expect big brother to win.
Give me a break. The rental car company OWNS the car. They can track it whenever, where ever, or however they want. Boohoo, now I can't park my fucking UHAUL truck in front of a government building and bomb the shit out of it because now they will catch me very very easily. Boohoo, i can't park my rental car in a parking garage and bomb some people with it. OMG, they might track you as going to a whore house or a strip club or a porn shop. Who cares? I know I wouldn't. I might get a laugh but thats all. Damn, and you think those conspiracy theorists are bad. I think rental car companies should have full rights over their property. Plain and simple.
Life is gonne smack you hard as you get older.
You're as funny as you are young.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Subscription Information Please check the information below to confirm how many ad free pages you will be receiving and the cost. Payment for: 1000-page Subscription to Slashdot Quantity: 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999 (total 1e+62 pages for uid 348547)
Total Amount (USD): $4999999999999999746935676485370094334818225055067 05036541952.00
You fly 8 hours, get to your destination at 11 PM and you get to the budget counter.
They push the paperwork across the counter... you've been renting for 20 years, and its 2 full pages of legalese, so you (very reasonably) assume there's nothing new.
Nope.
In there, they say they're going to track you and charge you every time you drive outside of a defined zone.
Now the rep doesn't explain any of this...after all, their job is to sell you non-insurance (CDW). So you sign it and drive over the state line. What the hell do you know about the rule not to cross the state line? After all, the rep is too busy selling you CDW to tell you about that part.
So you sign. You come back later, and there's a $7500 surcharge.
And asswipes like you say "well, you should have read the fine print".
Son, why do I need to have a lawyer tagging along with me to rent a car? It isn't REASONABLE, and you're essentially forced to sign at that point.
Or you could pass up the car, but all the other cars companies are closed or sold out.
"BUt you should have asked before hand" you bleat like a corporate sheep.
How the fuck can you get through life if every transaction requires a lawyer. Going to go into Wal-Mart to get some mouthwash? Uh-uh. You don't know what "rights" you're giving up.
If the capitalistic life is supposed to work that way, then I'm voting socialist. Every corporate entity should have their hands up my ass looking for a few bucks. If I rent a car, and they have special rules, then they should put up a sign that says "Hey, we're tracking you, and we're going to charge your sorry ass if you go one foot outside the state".
But no, corporations typically don't work that way.
The intent of this rule *ISN'T* to protect property, its to start dinging people a grand here and there because they know the legal system is stacked in their favor.
And we've got corporate assholes like you defending it like it came from jesus lips that customers have to bend over and take it to support some weird economic notion you have.
You and Marie Antoinette have a lot in common.
... is in charge of determining and enforcing "social" behavoir?
You said:
"Thats unacceptable anti-social behaviour. "
So is budget tracking their customer's driving habits. But somehow you seem okay with that. You speak like a 22 year old snot-nose kid.
Its very funny.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lemme get this straight... You BREAK YOUR CONTRACT, and then are SURPRISED and PISSED OFF when they CATCH YOU DOING IT?
Gimme a break. You broke the contract by exiting the area you agreed to stay in. If they catch you doing it, tough luck. You shouldn't have violated your contract.
Privacy my ass, you people just don't want to get caught breaking the rules.
Regards, Guspaz
The kids around here are too stupid. They think they're being economically *pure* or some nonsense like that.
in reality, they're supporting something far worse than 1984,
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"It's not unreasonable to expect people to read a 2-page contract. "
No, but it is unreasonable to understand the *effects* or certain wording.
I work with lawyers all the time, and there are nuances of contract law in which certain key words change the meaning to the opposite of what you expect.
How could you know this?
Well, go to law school, or bring a lawyer with you.
In your world, this seems like a reasonable solution.
The truth is none of these companies want you to read the contract.
And what good does it do you? You're not in a position to negotiate. So you either lose your trip, or sign something that will screw you out of $7,500.
But to you, that's okay, because its buried in 2 pages of legalese.
You truly are a little boy with a computer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fact: Rental car companies lose millions every year from boneheaded drivers who get in accidents in states where their cars arent insured. Not only in material losses, but the lawsuits stemming from these accidents.
Can you blame them for wanting to know which customers are breaching their contracts, and using misusing their property? Wouldnt YOU do the same? I sure as hell would.
When you rent a car, you enter into a contract. The contract clearly states its terms, and you agree to use the vehicle in a manner which doesn't violate the contract. Its as simple as that.
For every person complaining about being charged thousands of dollars for violating their contract, tough shit. Life isnt fair. Its not the rental company's fault their customers didnt read the contract before signing it. If you dont like what you see in the contract, DONT SIGN IT. These people signed it anyway.
I wish I could sue for being stupid. I should find someone to blame for being smart, and sue them.
Bowie J. Poag
"Boohoo, now I can't park my fucking UHAUL truck in front of a government building and bomb the shit out of it "
Hey, why don't you claim you're doing it to protect the children.
Then you win the trifecta for stupidity for the day.
Your kind is a rare kind of stupidity...you actually believe the nonsense you write.
Funny, but moronic. I'll bet girls don't care to hang around you much.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That being said, if you sign a contract, and agree to limit your use to specific terms and conditions, expect it to be enforced.
:D. "Yes Ma'am, you appear to have broken a few laws by exceeding the speed limit by five hundred and... oh. Hang on a sec..."
I would still be *SO* tempted to rent a car, pull the satellite tracking 'bits' out, UPS them around the country for a few days, and pop them back in.
Then deal with the 'fine' for doing air transport plane speeds across 8 states
a grrl & her server
You don't have privacy get over it.
Nobody with money or power wants you to have privacy, you have to fight to keep it.
Most people feel they have "nothing to hide" and if you want privacy you have "something to hide".
It is going and will be gone, and there is probaly nothing we can do about it, because most people can't explain why we need it, or even why it is important.
One issue that a lot of posters here seem to be missing is that we do things in rental cars we don't want anyone to know about. We visit competitors for interviews in a big hat and a rented car. We visit extramarital lovers in rented cars. We go to gay bars in cities we happen to be driving through. People can find out who we are dating, who our friends are, what our interests are and what our political affiliation is by tracking where we drive. This is especially true on business and pleasure trips, where rental cars (and infidelity) are common. It is reasonable to assume that someone will look at the odometer, kick the tires, and inspect their property when you return a rental. It is not reasonable for them to expect a full log of your journey, let alone to simply extract one from the vehicle.
If the Green Party gets labeled a terrorist group (which some in the Bush administration already have), I don't want my driving history subponead.
On the other hand, yes these people signed a contract. Personally, I believe that any contract which doesn't involve the possibility of negotiation should not be given the full weight of law. The two parts of this issue where the Arizona based rental company failed were in notifying their customers that they would be tracked and failing to clarify that visiting beyond a neighboring state isn't a 1 dollar per mile additional charge but a fine for the total number of miles driven during the rental period including inside the agreed upon area and out. The "no harm, no foul" person is quite reasonable in assuming that he's not being tracked (The EULA doesn't forbid them from contacting your parents and asking about your sexual history, but some privacy should be expected). If he's not being explicitly tracked, then the "neighboring states" provision is intended to keep the user within a reasonable area. So if you drive within the radius of the popular destinations in the surrounding states, you are in a reasonable area, and will be happily keeping up your end of the bargain, if not technically the unenforcable contract.
Iowa and Kansas aren't technically neighbor states, but I doubt anyone will consider it out of bounds to drive a rental car from Des Moines to Topeka.
Quite frankly a 5000 dollar fine from an obviously confusing portion of the contract resting on evidence that has been thrown out of another court as invasive for driving 5% of their trip in one of the safer states in the union is simple exploitive gouging through and through.
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
RENTER: "Here the car, good as new!"
BUDGET: "Here a fine."
RENTER: "What!? What the heck is the for!!"
BUDGET: "We tracked you going into the gettos. That is clear against the contract you sign, see. You're lucky we don't press charges."
RENTER: "Charges? What sort of charges?!
BUDGET: "Why else would you be in the getto except to buy drugs. We also noticed you went 30 in a 25 too."
RENTER: "I'll see you in court.
The journey is better then the end.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I own two cars that are in mint condition, that I meticulously maintain like the former mechanic that I am -- and I drive them like an old lady. But treating a car like that all the time leads to a buildup of certain frustations, that I've only found a release for when I fly somewhere and then rent a car.
The last time I rented a car, I killed it, and loved every second of it. The white sedan, when they gave me the keys, had 7 miles on it. I was the first person to ever use it. It was some kind of Chevrolet 6 cylinder FWD auto sedan thing, in other words a complete POS.
Well, first I had to see just what it took to get some serious wheelspin out it, & I'm talking the fill the air with blue smoke kind of spin. I found that holding the accelerator to the floor for a few seconds in neutral and then dropping it into gear did the trick. Then I had to see how fast it could go (in each gear individually) for long periods of time, how well it could stop from maximum speed (over and over again), how well it did off road. It actually was pretty good off road except that after a while from somewhere underneath it kept making these horrible "clump-snap noises"
By the time I brought it back, it had a little over 200 miles on the clock. The engine was missing out of at least one cylinder, had a VERY bad knock and smoked some out of the tail pipe. For the last 40 miles or so it had been stuck in second gear and I have no idea why. It didn't really take the bumps as well as when I started either.
I just love renting cars.
It won't be long now and the government will require that all vehicles have a black box in them. It'll be nice and automatic when you exceed the speed limit a fine will be mailed to you. I can't wait!
According to the article:
The lawsuits (plural) allege invasion of privacy as well as failure to disclose the monitoring.The biggest problem i see is that the monitoring technology puts the customer at a heightened disadvantage: The rental company can "tell" whether you have violated their contract by using the technology, but the very same technology gives the customer no such warning at all. The customer doesn't find out until s/he returns the vehicle, thus building up huge "fines". If the customer had the same warning the company had, the customer could either (a) turn the vehicle around and avoid a huge fine, or (b) dispute the alleged violation by showing that the vehicle is not, in fact, where it claims to be.
Granted, right now i can perform some of the same monitoring using my own GPS receiver---but that costs me extra money, and it doesn't level the playing field sufficiently, because not everyone who rents a car necessarily has a GPS receiver or can even afford one.
Disclosure of the monitoring at the outset is also important in levelling the playing field between the company and the customer: If i see that the mid-size sedan i've been issued has a monitoring system, i have the potential to request either another vehicle without a monitoring system (otherwise i'll go next door to Avis or Hertz and rent one there).
In sum, it's not the monitoring that's bad, it's the shift in the balance of power too far toward the company that's bad. If the monitoring system were not incomplete and allowed the customer to know when the system believes it detects a violation, then the customer has the power to react appropriately---otherwise it's just a scam to squeeze more money from customers. And if the monitoring system were disclosed, then the customer can make an informed decision about whether to accept the rental vehicle (i.e., whether to agree to the contract offered by the rental company).
:: "I am non-refutable." --Enik the Altrusian ::
Prolly not, he used to rent cars, and he loved to warm up the Ford Tarus in the cold mornings by keeping it in park and bouncing the engine off the rev-limiter.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Rental cars are great to beat the piss out of.
I laugh when I hear my co-workers bragging about the great deals they got on used rental cars.
They get PO'd when I tell them what most people do to rentals. They don't believe me, but when I give them enough detail to convince them, they get all red in the face and PO'd and won't talk to you again.
All in all, a great way to get rid of the losers.
It probably has something to do with someone getting caught by a car rental company who clearly does not support the GPL concept.
The GPL of car rental:
1. Rent a car for free
2. Take a test drive to anywhere you want to go.
3. Make some modifications to it like you owned it as long as you document what you did and told everyone who will listen.
4. you thought that water would lubricate better than oil so you drained the crankcase and filled it with water
5. you thought that the tires would roll better with 200PSI of pressure in them
6. might be a good idea to put some sugar in the gas tank for added oomph
7. painted half of the car red and the other half chartruse because it would look really cool in your opinion
8. put a new licence plate on it that says M$Sucks
9. you bring it back to the rental car company with a list of your modifications that should be implemented in all of their future car rentals.
10. The car rental company thanks you profusely for your work and you vehemently oppose all monetary payment for your services.
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
And, if need be, refuse to pay the credit card if they don't take your side. There's consequences to that though. Make SURE that you put the amount on your income taxes. After 3-5 years of not paying the credit card company, they will report the amount to the IRS as income. If you haven't paid taxes on it, then you'll owe the IRS much more. Anyway, the taxes on the amount are a lot lower than the actual 1$ a mile penalty.
even if they're wearing dresses, when they take off their clothes, and there's a penis there.
That means THEY'RE GUYS!!!!
So, no, you're mistaken. You don't do well with ladies.
And yes, as soon as you threw in the part about protecting us from terrorist, you automatically became the stupidest person on slashdot.
Now go back to those "girls" you talked about.
I travel weekly, and normally rent from Hertz (my company has a discount and they have GREAT service). I tried Budget a couple times, cause they were a little cheaper, and I just got horrible service. The woman behind the counter was rude, took a personal phone call while I was trying to rent, the car had problems, the list goes on and on. Knowing now that they would possible could be tracking me as I drive makes me NEVER want to rent from them in the future. Great marketing move on their part.
where does it say it is going to track what you do, with whom and why? all it is doing is tracking if you go outside a certain designated area. let's not blame anybody for anything that have not done. that's like blaming everyone for being a pirate just because they use P2P software... whether or not they have ambigious wording in their contracts are they are unfairly price gouging is a whole other issue. but for some reason a lot of people here think they the car rental companies are tracking and logging your behavior. before we accuse anybody of invasion of provacy, i would first like some proof. let's not become the MPAA/RIAA of the consumer world.
This reminds me also of my step-father's auto shop. He owns some wreckers (tow trucks) that are driven all over the place by his employees. He wanted to make sure that they were going where they were supposed to and not wasting gas on personal things when they were off duty. He installed the gps system to do just that. This is the same thing the rental car companies are doing. How is it wrong?
"Have a nice day"
I am having a great day, but I worry about people like you.
Still, you're about as funny as people get here on slashdot, so there is some value to you, even if it isn't immediately obvious.
P.S. isn't it odd that everything you post gets moderated as a troll? I'mt he only one willing to explain why. Here's why. Rental companies are only tracking you as a way to get more money from you. They aren't trying to prevent terrorism, they aren't trying to stop illegal acts. They're simply trying to get more money from you. So it is your right to screw them up anyway you can. They don't recognize morality or legality, they simply want your money any way they can. You don't believe this, and you believe there is some sort of cosmic "right" you've latched onto, but trust me, you need about 10 years more seasoning before you can trust those instincts. Right now, you're just a dumbass on slashdot who believes what he writes. I am just a little bit smarter and laughing at you.
Now then, go back to doing your usual job around here!
Contractual gems aside, how can Budget PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle in question actually exceeded the boundaries? I have yet to discover a system that is error-proof.
Seems to me that all one would need to do would be to overpower the GPS signal, and pump one out that says your in Iceland for about 3 hours... Continue driving as you wish...
When you get back, and they try to charge you - you sue them. Make certain the media and everyone you know understands that the system is flawed, unreliable, and subject to spoofing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
we often talk about nations needing more transparency in their financial practices to ensure better accountability, to reduce graft and corruption, etc.
of course the deeper issue is when the nation hides less overall, they hide less crime. it makes sense.
so why does this apply only to nations and not individuals?
i'm serious, i'm not a troll or an idiot. the obvious response is a government defines something as a crime, then you are penalized for it, even if there is no real "crime" or only a "crime" as defined by a narrow interest group abusing their political power.
but this is intellectually dishonest: it doesn't follow through completely with the thought about transparency in individual identity. crime is done under the veil of anonymity. it is. it is just a plain fact. we have more to lose in many ways by preserving anonymity than with creating a real, common sense policy with real teeth about the abuse of using our personal info. i am serious, don't knee-jerk react to what i am saying, follow my thinking.
rather than not track us, track us with an intelligent policy: keep our medical records for example, so any doctor can see, but not spammers, nor hmos hell-bent on denying us medical care for any stupid reason. well, sounds nice, but it will be abused, or moronic governemnt bureacracy will have the info spoofed out from under them or stolen. why is this a certainty? why can't the way we think about private information about ourselves evolve so that we recognize what is really at stake and impose harsh penalties- real harsh penalties for abuse of personal information?
the problem, of course, is partially ourselves, not the governement. some of us are very careful, some of are just plain stupid about how we handle our personal identity information.
i think, unfortunately for many reasons, that the weight of history is moving against anonymity in real life. technology makes it easier and easier to track us every day. i think that this will leak into corporate and governmental policy about customers and citizens no matter how much we kick and scream. but the POLICY about how this info can be used can be clearly delineated, and abuse can be clearly caught and handled. companies should not be able to trade our private info with such ease. governments should track and use our private info only under very clear circumstances, and never because of social policy- why is this so hard to do? it isn't! why is their less focus on policy about private info and more focus on kicking and screaming about anonymity? it should rightly be the other way around i think.
i think this is the next real battlefield about anonymity: not keeping our anonymity, i think that game is rapidly being lost, but what is done with our information and by whom. that is the real war it think, and i don't think it is a hard war: only if you are a paranoid schizophrenic who believes our government and corporations are hell-bent on turning us into slaves can you discount common sense and the obvious prevailing popular desire about keeping our info safe and secure.
and maybe some of us can be saved from ourselves, those of us who are not careful with their personal info, because in many cases, it is not big companies and big government who is our enemy about private info, it is us uncareful and convenience obsessed selves. we want it all, without common sense about REAL anonymity and private policy.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Doesn't Budget have the right to monitor THEIR OWN CARS? Remember, you don't have to rent from them, they're not say keeping the GPS units in cars once they're no longer theirs, etc.
The entire premise of rule of law is that contracts can be enforced. Technology, in this case, makes contracts more easily enforceable. If, for example, you had turned your rent-a-car into a Budget outside of the 'legal' area, you'd be prosecuted no matter what... this isn't much of a different issue here. As soon as companies find their ability to limit their control of their PHYSICAL property is gone, I think the end result will be less 'rights' for people, in the form of it being either unaffordable or simply impossible to rent a car due to the lack of competition.
This is merely one of the many choices where people make a choice to perhaps limit their privacy to less than it usually would be in exchange for something else - in this case, the right to pay for the use of a car from a specific company. As far as I know, the government never gets ahold of this information, and it's not being sold to private investiagors, et al. who might actually try to profit from this. Its really no different than paying to use a security system in your house - remember, some people actually give a company THEIR MONEY so that the aforementioned company the right and ability to see which doors are opened and when, some even cameras, microphones, etc. to snoop around the house. Why do they do this? Not because they wish for their privacy to be invaded, but realistically, more because they are willing to give up their privacy for something they think to be more valuable - in the case of a security system, peace of mind, in the case of a Budget rent-a-car, mobility away from home. On a side note, if enough of a racket is made in the right way about this, perhaps some companies will start to offer (and advertise) GPS-free cars, either as a competitive measure or at a price premium.
And if this is just my $0.02, my words are dirt cheap.
What if those measures include attaching alligator clips to your nutsack that become electrified if you go over 55mph?
Budget was amazed when business actually went up, but wondered why so many customers requested shiny black leather seats.
Sugar in the gas tank is not a big deal. More of a nuisance.
b ru ary/02.html
http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/2001/Fe
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nope. There's just lots of Ben-a-likes out here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh no! A grab at extra profit! From a for-profit corporation with shareholders!?! How dare them. Grab a torch and let's take to the streets.
Grow up you fucking spaz.
it's thier cars ppl!, i think they ohould be abne to do what they want with them!
I disagree with you. Municipalities (especially small, backwoods ones) have an incentive to keep ticketing because it brings in revenue from outsiders. How many tales have you heard about the corrupt local cop in a po-dunk town who pulls over folks doing 5 over and charges them with doing 15 over? And if they get to traffic court, the judge makes them pay anyway.
I'm not sure what the optimal solution is for speed limits. I think a lot of them are set arbitrarily and should be adjusted up or down based on saftey (e.g., flat out on the interstate, I see no problem with 90, but some neighborhood streets really shouldn't be 35).
What is your Slash Rating?
GPS systems consist of a triangulation of radio frequencies to track the user's position, and generate a coordinate along a 2d location grid. It doesn't know where state boundaries are, only mapping software know what is California and what is nevada.
Likewise, as the rental company pointed out the original point of this is to keep track of cars for when they are stolen (like lojack), and that facility requires remote broadcasting of addresses. The fact that this is now being used to track cars as they pass through state boundaries shows this is not a passive system, but an always (or frequently) on / broadcasting system.
Now if this charge to, say, a Mastercard were to be disputed, said car company would have to offer evidence supporting them. In this case the only evidence available is logs of the user's positions. The courtcase will, I'm sure, involve the submission of these logs.
So we can logically conclude that this sytem is always or nearly always on, frequently broadcasting location information, and that at least the out-of-bounds information and last known position are logged, if not more.
Evidence would show it is at the very least logging some of your position information and can easily log all of it.
The rental companies probably don't plan to moniter the moral character of their customers... though I wouldn't be surprised to see coordinated promotional efforts between rental companies and the places their customers most often visit. But would you feel comfortable if they were to bug the car, record all of the conversations that happened inside, and promise not to use the tapes unless a law was broken? At the current stage, there don't appear to be any nefarious plans for these records. However, as these records are being taken without the knowledge or concent of the customers, there are many potential nefarious uses.
Yes, I know... substantial noninfringing... P2P, DeCss, and IP law is an entirely different beast, and it is unfair to compare the two. The MPAA/RIAA are trying to hold onto a revenue stream by setting up a legal framework to press criminal charges agaisnt any uses they choose for their product long after the point of purchase. The issue here is the undisclosed tracking and logging of user's information which may have substantial noninfringing uses, but so too might suspicious or incriminating but upon closer review legal, harmless, and or innocent activities of the driver. It is important to not jump the gun and say that any logging is going to lead to nazi-esque persecution... all business need to keep records of the transactions they make and that includes *certain* aspects of how a user interacts with their system. It is important for the functioning of the phone companies' businesses to record who called whom and when. It is potentially damaging to their customers when they start logging all of the calls without wiretap authority.
And your point is well taken, it would be much more benificial for this country if we took down the RIAA than if we dismantled Budget Rent-A-Car. That doesn't mean we have to agree with all of Budget's policies, or that we have to spend all of our time howling about the RIAA. I've been ranting about the MPAA for the past three years... people are starting to look at me funny.
"...there have always been those who wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government. There is but one safe rule...confine (it) within the sphere of its appropriate duties...Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed." - Andrew Jackson.
This applies more and more to the activities of the companies we have to come to depend upon as surrogate governments. How many people here are comfortable knowing that Microsoft loggs all of your browsing when using WebTV?
-Chris
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All you pooh poohers flaming anyone critical of this policy clearly don't understand that contracts are not supposed to be exploitive or hidden or one sided or vague or invasive.
You do understand that don't you?
What if the 'contract' stated you couldn't but gas except at the rental agency for 3x the retail price but the terms were so vague you didn't read or understand them and they assessed you a $20,000 fine. Still feel good? What if your 'contract' said they could bill your credit card ANY AMOUNT without your knowledge or permission? Still get your Libertarian juices flowing?
Is your cable bill a contract? By your reasoning it is. What if your cable 'contract' stated which pay per view events you were allowed to purchase and that there was penalty if you 'broke' the terms? Still boxing for Adam Smith and John Locke?
You people wave the word contract around like you know what you're talking about. You do know that some contracts are illegal right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Moving on, most rental car companies prohibit you from driving your car into Canada or Mexico and I would imagine the rental agencies in Arizona have a really big problem with it. As I understand it car theft is a huge problem in Arizona and most of the cars are in Mexico before the owner even knows they are stolen. Another issue is insurance. I am pretty sure my standard auto policy will not cover me in Mexico. That means unless I pay extra for insurance if I wreck in Mexico I am up shit creek without a paddle.
I would also love to sit here and advocate the use of GPS recovery systems by auto manufacturers but that system would simply become cut-wire then drive away quickly. Personally, if I lived in a high theft area or drove an often-stolen car I would add some sort of GPS tracking to it. The issue is how to do the telemetry inexpensively. Because very few people would have this kind of functionality I think a theif would ignore a small GPS receiver, especially if they're trying to get away before being noticed. Imagine grabbing your laptop and packet modem and heading out with the cop with a map on your screen and a dot showing where your stolen car is. Would make for an intersting scene. (Similar to the bait car used in D.C. mentioned here weeks ago)
However, if this type of system were abused by your wife she could see when you're at the Thai Massage House, so then again maybe it isn't such a good idea.
The Green party ARE terrorists. Their affiliate organizations engage in violence and sabotage against corporations which disagree with their charter. They are also one of the prominent COMMUNIST organizations in Europe. Ralph Nader lost every ounce of respect I ever gave him as a consumer advocate when he joined up. I happen to agree with almost everything else you said, but do expect that knock on your door if you stay with that organization.
The absolute best part about rental cars is treating them as..., well... someone else's car :)
If I'm being tracked I may have to be accountable for slaloming between road cones, speeding, and generally treating a large object moving at break-neck speeds as a go-kart. We can't have that.
I would love to know in which locality you live. While a lessor and lessee can engage in any contract they wish, 99% of landlords use a standard rental contract, ususally the ones sold at Office Depot. Here in Chicago, I have lived in ghetto studios while in college moving on up to a $1300 one bedroom on the 30th floor of a high rise, they all used the exact same rental contract.
Needless to say, clauses such as the ones you mention are common, but are more clearly worded. When landlords refer to not using your apartment as a place of business, they refer to you operating in violation of the city zoning ordinance. That is to say, you have a studio apartment, and decide to open up a massage parlor specifically for spanking little boys. That is clearly something landlords want to prevent.
Many leases to do not allow open flames, not specifically things that are flammable. Since 99% of fires in apartments are caused by cigarettes or candles, it is to prevent such items from use. MOre than anything, that clause is inteded to hold YOU liable if the apartment burns down. If the fire inspector comes in and says "a candle fell over and lit the child spanking whips on fire igniting the wallpaper", you would have to pay for the damage.
But the main point of this is, you DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN A LEASE TO WHICH YOU DO NOT AGREE.
Simply tell the landlord, I want to rent this apartment, but I don't like that clause, so if you strike it out, I will sign. If they say no, go elsewhere. Of course, you could save your money instead of going to massage parlors and buy a condo instead... Especially since tenants like you always bitch about landlords and them fucking you over, there aren't too many rental apartments these days.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
This is done right now at the low end of the market. There are thousands of people driving around in cars that will stop running if they miss a payment.
See the site of Payment Protection Systems, whose motto is "Changing Behavior Through Technology". Their "OnTime" system is primitive; it's just a timer, which resets when given a new key code provided by the payment processor. If not reset, the car won't start. There are warning beeps, a day countdown, and an emergency override you can use once.
The next step up is Payment Sentry, with the slogan "It's Like Having a Collector in the Car!". Payment Sentry uses the Skytel paging system to send remote commands to the car, like "sound audible make-payment warning", "disable starter" or "sound alarm horn". It's one-way, though; there's no back channel.
Finally, there's Tracker International, a full-service vehicle tracking operation. Their GeoTraxx uses GPS and cellular data networks to transmit location. "Using GPS, vehicles can be pinpointed to within 36 feet. Location is fast, too. ... Often, same day location and repo takes place!" They even have a live demo, although it's not working at the moment.
Why not go to the next level an calculate the insurance changes/premium using the GPS data in real time... That way if we drive into a "dnagerous" area, our credit card charges can reflect the risk... The next step I am sure... Wireless/GPS/Realtime... Wonderful (I don't think so...) -wata
Everyone's up in arms: consumers have privacy rights, the rental companies have property rights, everybody is subject to contract law, and everybody is subject to consumer protection laws. Which has priority? Whose rights take precedence over others' rights? None of the above.
The company owns the vehicles and has the right to prevent them from being stolen or destroyed. The company also has the right to offer whatever terms in its contract it desires / dreams up. They have the right to modify their cars any way they wish, including the installation of customer tracking equipment.
On the other side of the coin, consumers have the right to know exactly what they are getting for their money. If the cars were modified since they left the assembly line in detroit, then the company is obligated to disclose information about the modifications to the customers. IANAL, but I believe that failure to disclose the presence of location and speed tracking equipment violates consumer protection laws. The state failed to bring charges against the company, so there is good reason for the customers to start a class action lawsuit.
The invasion of privacy is obvious. More and more companies are tracking not just their customers identities and their purchases, but also their signatures, images, movements and behavior. IMHO it's pissing people off. Many people are aggrivated because they don't seem to own their personal information anymore; because everything they do and everything they buy is recorded by somebody or some company. I think people are offended because the companies couldn't invade your privacy before, yet the economy functioned and profits were made. Now, companies are invading consumer privacy at every opportunity and they're not giving any discounts or compensating the customer for the intimite knowledge they gain, intimate knowledge that is usually unrelated to the transaction at hand. For example, why does a hair salon demand to know my phone number before I can pay cash to get a haircut? What's up with that?
This is still a free market, but most people don't act as though they have a choice. It really bothers me that people don't exert their right to take their business to another company. Instead, they simply line up to 'take' whatever a particular retailer 'dishes out' to them. Is this the net result of raising generations of children in front of the television? Are these people just hopeless sheep waiting for the slaughter?
Even for 'active consumers', making an informed decision can be very difficult. It's common knowledge that most people never read a EULA before accepting it. It's also true that many people don't read contracts (such as those for rental cars) before signing them. I believe this is because the consumers feel powerless to read, evaluate, and make an informed decision about agreeing to a contract on a moment's notice at the point of sale. Of course, the company has had all the time in the world to consult with lawyers and carefully prepare the contract to benefit the company in every possible way.
Although it's easier to give in to the will of a particular company, it's better to stand firm. Unless consumers start refusing poor treatment, skyrocketing prices, awful service, and poor products, the market will never change and the choices will never improve. Capitalism is all about providing a supply of what the consumers demand at the prices they are willing to pay. If consumers pay too much for crappy products and services, if they accept lengthy contracts with questionable language, or if they allow companies to spy on them for free, then that's what the market will provide.
>But if you return your car after 3 days and find that you have been fined for doing 70 in a 50 zone, how are you going to remember that you passed a semi?
The question is, if they sue you, can the rental company convince the majority of the jury that you didn't pass anything?
Menthinks that without video evidence the answer is no. So expect that next. Fun, fun, fun.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
By 2005, the Guvmint wants GPS installed in ALL cell phones, whethere you the consumer want one or not.
Forget about GPS in your rental car -- think of the targeted ads for everything you visit.
We need laws, and fast. But we aren't going to get any. Business uber alles.
Car rental companies get MUCH better deals for coverage from the insurance companies when they restrict the use of the vehicule to a certain range from the base site.
In some areas if the vehicule is only used in ONE state, then they may have a lower tax bill for the commercial nature of the use for the vehicule.
Some local branches get charged more by their "parent company" for "one-way" trips since there are "recovery costs" involved in getting the vehicule back/ reassigned to a different branch.
Normally those costs are simply passed on to the consumer; but then you get those "el-cheapo" rates that attempt to be lower than the competitionn, and they add those unclear restrictions.
But then think of what industry they are in... [have you recently tried to price an airline ticket and actually looked at the restritions disclaimer? There can be a large difference in what can be done between some flights that all have the exact same price]
Still... I personally will think twice before renting from budget again. [and I DO read the fine print...] especially since their contract is NOT clear on ALOT of stuff; and the non-disclosure of the GPS annoys me as well.
--
Time is on my side
"Would it have killed you to spend twenty minutes before you traveled, asked for a faxed copy of the agreement, and reveiwed it on the plane or in the comfort of your own home? "
Not one, but lets look at the typical trip:
1) Limo ride to airport - you need to read the contract
2) Airline - just what *is* my right with regard to lost luggage, where Is it. You'll need to read that contract
3) Rental car - we've already gone over that little "gem"
4) Hotel - can they perform surveillence in my room to make sure I don't have sex in their room (that was buried in the contract somewhere...it costs money to clean sheets)
5) Going out to dinner - god knows what I'm liable for...
Do you get the point? In your view, everytime you perform any economic function you should read all the fine print because its everybody's right to screw you blind if you sign it unknowingly.
It isn't practical and it isn't reasonable.
Somebody in the computer business should live better.
I saw pictures of your place, and hopefully its that way because you're investing all your money so you'll be a millionaire someday.
Incidentally, someday, I'll explain why libertarianism is an interesting philosophy, but self-defeating as a political movement (P.S. Howard Stern was your greatest candidate EVER!)
Demonstration at Federal Metropolitan Detention Center, to protest continuing detentions of immigrants. Demonstrations will continue on the first Saturday of every month: MARK YOUR CALENDARS NOW FOR SATURDAY AUGUST 3 AND SEPTEMBER 7.
Rally take place in Brooklyn at 29th Street and 3rd Avenue, M/N/R train to 25th St/4th Avenue.
plow your car into a tree once and it'll take care of that obsessiveness... It's nice not having to worry if some idiot hit my car with their door... We need a new website or magazine called Rental And Track where people do exactly what you did, with all sorts of models and present the results in a table format so we can get the best off road rental car....
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
I personally believe that once you step foot into a car, you have taken the reigns of the most dangerous instrument regularly used in public places. Thus, everyone should be tracked for speed. 100% enforcement of speed limits (finally, they can boost them up to where they should be and at the same time we don't have to worry about careless psychos who drive 30 or 40 over with their eyes watching the radar detector rather than the road.
What he says is very practical. It's rediculous to assume that every economic transaction should involve tons of legalese and a contract that you ahve to study beforehand to make sure you aren't getting fucked.
Renting a car is a simple, common occurrance. You walk up, fill out your name and stuff, and take off with a car. He's damn right that adding something like this is just screwing over customers.
If it's about protecting their cars... why aren't their insurance companies backing it? Do they get cheaper premiums for doing it? No? Then how is it protecting their cars?
If the Green Party gets labeled a terrorist group (which some in the Bush administration already have), I don't want my driving history subponead.
I read that and first thought you'd said 'If the Green Party got power' (lord help us!). I can see heavy fines imposed by Greenies against people who speed, drive unnecessarily, etc.
What is it with people expecting privacy in a rented house or apartment? It's not yours, you don't own it. It belongs to someone else, and they can do whatever they want. Hidden cameras, show up at 3am to hang out, whatever. If you want privacy, buy your own house.
See how rediculous that sounds?
I was curious about this case the other day and asked. I got a reply back from Garry Desjardins, Assistant Attorney General via the AG's RP person (June.Neal@po.state.ct.us):
"ACME has not yet complied with the Commissioner's order to pay restitution to consumers who were assessed fees for exceeding the speed limit. The reason is that they filed an appeal of the decision in court and asked the court for an order that they would not have to make these payments until the appeal is resolved. The court asked ACME for some additional information to decide this issue and ACME must produce it and renew their request for the order staying the Commissioner's decision within the next two weeks. If the court does not grant the stay (we are objecting to it) then the company should start making payments shortly after the court's ruling. If the court grants the stay, then payments will not be made until the court makes its final decision on the appeal. The last of the briefs is due during late August so the court may not decide the merits of the appeal before September at the earliest."
Stay tuned this fall for a press release at http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/pressrel.htm.
"Several customers are suing Budget for the invasion of privacy."
Their car, their property. What is so hard about understanding the need to keep track of that property or keep it secure? I seriously doubt there is someone 24/7 watching your satillite track to see if you buy a McLobster with your rental.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
They spent all that money to send him to college and now he manages rental car agencies.
I'll bet his parent have killed themselves, right?
Nothing like satellite tracking at all.
They're taking their dog to get its two shots before it's too late. You're taking your dog there too, right?
since when is Budget part of law enforcement. Where I come from law enforcement is strictly limited to licensed government agencies, not car rental companies.
The other question I'd have is that I just got into the US of A with this single visa covering all states, so why can a private company limit my freedom of movement, after all I pay them for every mile I drive that car.
(OK, after hearing of this anomaly next time I rent a car I'll be careful who gets my business).
This is what you get when there is no general law governing privacy, it seems any idiot with deep pockets (= an expensive lawyer) can interpret it his own way.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Next time you go out to rent a car, you read the contract. Then ask, loudly, that you want a car that doesn't have a GPS receiver spying on every place you drive the car. If they refuse, go to another chain. :) Don't forget to request that this gets put into the contract, in writing. (Or, have a pre-written form and get the agent/manager to sign it affirming no GPS-based location spying, so if they lie and do, you can sock em.)
First, it'll point out to the OTHER people in line that such a spy-device is in their cars, and second, it'll make the *other* customers also make the same request...
And, they'll be a lot more likely to try to please you to get you to leave and shut up. Most businesses don't like their customers to say 'this is crap' to the other people shopping as you leave.
This age restriction, IMHO, is absolute bullshit. It's primarily price discrimination; younger people who tend to travel more often and/or have not purchased or leased a car yet tend to be the ones with the most interest in renting. They claim that the higher insurance costs related to renting to 18-to-24 year olds forces them to charge premium rates to these "underage" drivers.
I can understand that inexperienced drivers may cost more to insure, but at least in Massachusetts, you can qualify for the best available insurance rates after 6 licensed years without at-fault accidents and moving violations. Typically, drivers reach that point near age 23. So, it appears inexcusable for companies to charge a $20-$25 PER DAY on 23 and 24 year olds with a good driving record. Or instead of high insurance costs, the excuse is really the fact that auto rental is an oligopoly with not enough competition to drive "underage" surcharges down to levels more in line with any increased costs associated to renting to these people.
What's even more ridiculous is that many drivers' insurance policies already cover rental cars, which reduces the rental company's exposure to almost nothing in regards to the risk associated such a driver damaging or losing such a car. I think states should pass a law stating that age shall not be a factor in determining basic rental rates or policies; anyone of the age of majority shall be served at the same basic price. (This policy would not cover any negotiated discounts that rental companies enter into with good customers that cover employees of certain companies or the government).
Insurance should only be mandated with the rental if a potential renter cannot provide proof that he or she is covered by one's own auto insurance policy for liability and damage to the vehicle to be rented. If it turns out that providing insurance to renters for liability and collision coverage is more expensive for younger drivers, then it is reasonable to pass along this increased cost to the renter, as costs are now passed on to people with short or bad driving records on their own autos' policies.
I find it strange that U-Haul and Ryder will gladly rent one of their 13-ton trucks to anyone legally able to enter into a contract. They also provide liability insurance (most standard auto policies won't cover a vehicle bigger than 5 tons), at a rate at worst equal to auto companies' surcharges and more often at $10-15 a day. Yet, just about anyone in the auto rental industry will say "no" or ("yes, but it'll cost you $175 extra for your week's rental") to a 24-year-old with a personal insurance policy and a good driving record.
Well, there's oligopoly at work for you. And things won't change unless lots of people realize what's going on here, or the government make it clear to the companies themselves what's going on.
"I am transfering to UF next spring "
./. I can see why. Your decision making is that of an 19 year old. That's not a bad rap. You actually are 19 years old. So body and intellect match. That enviable. Hopefully, mind won't stay at 19 and when you hit 30, your decision making and thought processes will improve.
I understand. Could be worse though: you could be going to florida international university.
Still, going to a school because of a girlfriend? (You did "check", right? Remember, penis = boy).
You've got to understand why your stuff keeps getting modded down as trolls here on
And you're still the 2nd funniest poster on Slashdot, but you don't mean to be.
Look on the bright side. I'm willing to be honest with you. Your "girl" friend is nice because you make her mp3's of all your CD's so she doesn't have to buy any herself. And you seem to let her alone at parties, so its a good trade.
Smile. At least the world will think you get the joke.
"I've got Onstar on my Grand Prix "
A Grand Prix? I wondered who bought those crap boxes, and now I know. People who think Budget is doing the right thing.
Cou -*moron* -gh
omg That is f-ing hillarious. I totally agree. Infact I am going to go out today and rent a car just for the f of it, and create an anonymous web page about it.
You people wave the word contract around like you know what you're talking about.
And you're waving the word Libertarian around like you know what you're talking about.
Defending companies that engage in fraud has nothing to do with being a Libertarian. Calling such a person a Libertarian is as ignorant as calling a knight who went around murdering nonbelievers during the crusades a Christian.
Please, if you don't know what a Libertarian is, don't use the term.
.
"Ma'am, you crossed several state boundaries, including... Hawaii."
If so many rental cars didn't get destroyed, maybe they would not need to do this.
I think these devices should be required in all cars driven by everyone. Since people drive like idiots, they need to be punished into submission. The current system is not working.
With these devices, police agencies could detect and solve:
tailgating
drunk and aggressive drivers
speeding
auto theft
And automagically write the tickets, leaving the police free to catch murderers, and also improve police safety. No more getting blown away when pulling people over for routine traffic stops.
I am all for it if it will get the a s s h o l e driving that ford expedition off of my bumper. Otherwise, make spy hunter type oil slicks, and rear facing 1000 watt halogens legal.
I say write them a ticket for every last infraction, no matter how minor. Nickel dime them to death and issue points ad infinitum. You would see a lot more people using mass transit, and the roads would more or less empty out to pre 1960 levels.... heaven. I don't speed or run lights so I would get to drive; )
I am of the opinion that man is not worthy of privacy, because he uses it to screw others over, or kill them. When people learn to not be such rude losers, and gain some respect for others, lives and property, maybe we can have our privacy back.
I can't wait for orwellian times. Either that or more severe, true, undiscriminating and swift justice...
People only get away with killing, hurting, and endangerment because they can. Take privacy away and it will be safe to function in society.
I would trade privacy for safety any day of the week.
"anyone who is not an idealist by age 21 has no heart. anyone who is still an idealist by age 31 has no brain"
Otto Von Bismark
It applies to privacy. I have nothing to hide. If uncle sam wants to watch me jerk off, if it is in the best interests of society, let him watch.
l8,
ac