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.
...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
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.
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