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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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."
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>>>
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.
>>>
That quest for protection ends where my privacy begins. And that VERY MUCH includes knowledge of everywhere I go, unless I agree to it explicitly. How would you feel if cable companies had the right to barge into your house to check if I've split the wire there. Or if theaters, in the search for protection, strip searched everyone who entered, to ensure there was no camera?
Yeah, that's how you should feel about this. Limiting the speed on the engine and using other methods (like flipping a switch if away from a radar transmitter, or something) would do the trick just fine.
You're done.
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.
Bah. Collusion only works where there are a small number of players and barriers to entry are high. Compared to say, airlines, rental car companies have an easy time accomodating an influx of customers -- they can simply buy more cars whereas airlines have to find more gates (and you don't just walk down the street to Joe's Auto Dealership for a 747).
Moreover, there are dozens of smaller players in the rental car market, even though a few companies control a large percentage of the market. This makes it likely that collusion at the top will create incentives for smaller players to expand. Example: Enterprise expanded from a small company, in part by allowing young people to rent cars when the major players raised the minimum age for renting to 25.
Thus, collusion exists and may in fact occur in the rental car market, but is unlikely to have enough staying power in the face of competition from small firms to alter prices for very long.
Make cheese not war 8:)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow privacy in a rented vehicle.
Do I have no right to complain if I have sex with my girlfriend in a rented car, and the rental company sells the hidden camera footage to porn sites? What about my rented apartment?
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.
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 speed limit on the highway where I live is 55 MPH. The average speed is about 70 MPH; you can do 80 MPH and be keeping up with the majority of the people at times. The police rarely do much, because someone going 55 while everyone else does 80 isn't a "good citizen" -- they're a hazard. Yes, 80 MPH may be dangerous, but someone going 55 in such circumstances is equally as dangerous.
What I'm saying can be summarized as such - without them knowing the prevailing circumstances and conditions, I really don't think they have any right to issue me a fine for speeding. (Note that I'm not debating the legality of this - it's in a contract, and you signed it. I'm merely discussing why no one should ever agree to a contract like this.)
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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?
If you had to contact your lawyer every time you entered a commercial transaction, you would experience a lot of what economists call friction. If everyone did this, it would significantly dampen the economy. If this became a common thing, you can be sure that the political process would force disclosure. It already does in many areas, exactly because of these kinds of abuse of trust.
The problem with complex corporate contracts is that few people can afford the time to read them unless they are for something really expensive. One expects certain norms in those contracts, and this is why slipping in a nasty term in the middle of a big contract for a routine purchase is considered a bad thing!
Why are people outraged by this? Because it is unusual. It is sneaky, in that unless properly disclosed it is an unexpected and normally unseen part of the agreement, inconsistent with normal practice. This is what is meant by "fine print" - stuff most people don't have the time to read in their normal life.
The only good weather is bad weather.
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.