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
...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.
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
Wanna get even? Whenever you rent a car and they 'make' you get insurance, make it worthwhile. Run that mofo into a tree or kick the hell out of the car before you take it back. At least be certain your insurance money went to good use and not just their pockets. Whatever you do, don't hit another car, cuz then it gets messy.
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
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even better - read it slowly while in line before signing :-)
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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 ?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In a house you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in a hotel room or a public washroom you do.
In a car you do not.
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.
Right. You're trying to organize a boycott on Slashdot.
Slashdot, where everyone was up in arms about Johansen, the DMCA, MPAA, and DeCSS.
Slashdot, where they still allow Katz to post reviews of movies produced by member companies to the MPAA.
Slashdot, where everyone talks the talk about how the Senator from Disney (Hollings) and the SSSCA are evil.
Slashdot, where in the most recent movie review (MIB2) a large number of the comments were about how MIB was boring and that Lilo and Stich (a Disney movie) was better.
So, the MPAA and the DMCA is bad, lets all say they're bad. But, lets all run down to the local mega-plex and freely give our money to the bad companies and organizations because they made a move full of bright colors and funny sounds!
The hypocracy on this site is amazing sometimes. Most notably when dealing with pop-culture entertainment.
Must cost an ass-load to take your lawyer with you whenever you travel.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ya think?
Yeah, I think. . . I think hearing the word "boycott!" over and over again, anytime a company does something some whiner doesn't like, is getting really old. Further, I think it's become a catchphrase. . . for the sheep who have no better means of expressing their whine when a company does something they don't approve of.
As Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Save the boycott talk for a company that's dumping toxins by the ton into public drinking water supplies, discriminating against minorities, or exploiting overseas child labor.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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.
Ummm....
I don't have one of their contracts in front of me, but I'm pretty sure there's no prohibition against lowering the car, installing ground effects, and a snazzy spoiler too, but somehow I think they might have a problem with it.
Tell you what:
Why don't you go rent one of these, disconnect or disable the GPS system, and return the car. Then report back to the Slashdot crowd on how long it took them to find out about it, and how much they're going to fine you.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's a difference between borrowing and renting.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gee....maybe you should try opening a rental company and see what happens to *your* property. These guys aren't doing it to snoop on you (they'd install bugs and cameras if they really cared that much; chances are you only matter to them insofar as they get paid and the vehicle comes back intact and in contract). Speeding increases the chances of an accident, and is hard on the car. Leaving the agreed upon travel zone may cause insurance and registration problems. Enforcing the terms of a contract presented by the rental company and signed by the driver is well within their legal rights, and in my judgement constitutes the action of a "reasonable and prudent" individual. That is, if they have no idea where you took the car and you did something the boys in blue don't like, it's conceivable that the rental agency would share some blame for not making a reasonable effort to monitor your actions with their vehicle.
I don't think this is the least bit invasive, and in any case, we're not talking about a constitutional right to privacy here. That is designed to keep Uncle Sam (or Dubya, your choice) from spying on private citizens. It has nothing at all to do with enforcing contractual agreements unless, as mentioned before, they've bugged or covertly filmed you (which are covered by laws).
Get real about this. Or try running your own company and finding out why they use measures like this.
What is your Slash Rating?
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
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 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.
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.
Vote with your dollars.
What's wrong with that?
The company is either lying, or they run a lousy franchise.
The *entire point* of franchising is renting your brand identity to a third party. And the reason this is valuable is that the brand identity conveys information to the consumer. This means that franchisors work hard to make sure that your experience with their franchisees is uniform. Typically they have all sorts of rules, inspectors, etc. Consider how uniform the experience is with a MacDonalds, for example.
I spent many years in the hotel industry. Many hotel chains are franchises. For example, a Super-8 is typeically run by a small businessman who has purchased the franchise. Rental cars can work the same way. In fact, Avis is owned by a company that also franchises hotels (Cendant). Interestingly, Best Western, one of my favorite chains for storm chasing, is an association, which makes it truly wierd. But then again, Visa and Mastercard are also associations, but AMEX is not. Go figure.
In this case, what Budget's response tells *me* is that they don't care if their franchisees screw consumers. Given that, it means to me that the Budget Brand has no objection to screwing consumers, so I can expect to get screwed when dealing with them.
The only good weather is bad weather.
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.
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
I guess somebody should outlaw tinted windows then, right?
Here it is illegal to have windows so tinted you can't see into the car.
There's principle, then there's the real world.
And in this case, not following the principle of reading the contract will cost you hundreds of dollars. That's real money we're talking.
There's nothing like a real world material loss for turning customers from docile, hurried, ignorant sheep into angry, alert, demanding, sharks.
Companies that do this are just asking for trouble down the line.
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?
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?
Yah: when you rent, you sign a contract that explicitly states what you can and can not do with the car.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"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
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.
Must be real nice to be able to afford regular access to a lawyer. My mother, when she was earning $15k/year (teacher's intern salary), thought that it was her highest expense priority to have any contract she had to sign reviewed by her retained lawyer.
Oh wait a minute, _food & shelter_ were more important - come to think of it, the less contact she had with lawyers, the more money she had for her survival. Funny how that works.
I'm sure that poor people deserve to get screwed over by any contracts they sign, 'cause they didn't have those contracts carefully scanned by their family lawyers.