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.
There is one solution to that.....isn't there a method to kill the GPS antenna? Something I read somewhere stated that if you cover an antenna with aluminum foil it will kill the GPS antenna?
What? Me worry? NEVER.....
...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.
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:)
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.
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.
They could have ridden the bus, train, taken a taxi, or better yet, just driven with another car rental company.
Not all car rental places are this way.
And it's not the company's fault that someone didn't read the contract. It's the customer. If you don't like what it says, walk away and go to another rental counter.
I have.
The look on the rental employee's face is priceless when you walk too.
So you *want* your insurance company and the state police to mail your parking tickets and speeding tickets to your house?
If I knew I was going to get caught, I wouldn't speed. Besides, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln
My God, insurance companies already have a racket going - and the sheep like you will blindly swallow it in the name of "think of the children" and "public safety".
No, I support it in the name of eliminating selective enforcement, lowering the tax burden of traffic police, raising the speed limits now that they don't have to be artificially lowered, and lowering the insurance rates of those who don't break the law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
One thing nobody is thinking about...
Should the rental car company have the right to fine a renter for going 5 miles over the speed limit? Who are they to think they can take the job of a cop? Do they really think that their cars are better off if the renter doesn't speed? Slightly maybe. It is definitely a money grubbing tactic, just like ATM fees.
another thing...
"invasion of privacy" can be defined in this way. Imaging driving a rental car driving down a freeway during a semi-busy time. Now imagine that the rental car company has assigned a cop to follow you every where you go to make sure you don't speed. Would you feel uncomfortable? If you happen to accidentally travel over the limit because the flow of traffic is doing it, then someone starts adding up the fines.
Who among us doesn't feel intimidated just a little when a cop happens to be following you. You may be doing everything right, but the tension is definitely uncomfortable. Invasion of privacy doesn't mean getting away with it because we always have been able to before, it means a reasonable accountability that lets us live our life without fear of being scrutinized. There isn't anyone I know that is so confident and sure of themselves that they wouldn't mind being watched like this.