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 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.
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
So in your apartment (for those of us living in apartments), which you rent, you have no right to privacy????? I think not!
The car I lease from Ford, you would argue that I have no rights to privacy to it? The only real difference is the length of contract and amount of money.
You may want to re-think your renters rights views....
I am posting this again because of the way that some of you #%@$%@$% people think!!!
Jezus, from the way you talk you would think you have the right to know everything about every body just because you loan them something.
Bet if this was MICROSOFT tracking all their lease-license customers computing you would be going NUTZ!!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you even bother reading the article? If you had, you'd see that the bulk of it explains why the rental agency's activites could be seen as more than just protecting their property.
For example, consider the following quote from the article, "Some customers said they didn't realize the $1-per-mile charge would be applied to their entire trip." In other words, if I were to drive an unlimited mileage in-state rental for 5,000 in-state miles and 2 out-of-state miles, I get hit with a $5,002 penalty.
It gets even worse, as "In some cases, according to court documents, the customers discussed their travel routes with Budget rental agents, and permitted areas were noted on rental contracts."
In short, this sounds like the rental agency is using the penalties as a gotcha-style revenue scheme rather than a legitimate means of protecting their own property. The fact that you ignored that entire aspect of the article makes me suspect that you're either delibrately trolling or at least weren't diligent enough to read up on the issue that you're commenting on.
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.
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.
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