Aaron Computer Rental Firm Spies On Users

An anonymous reader writes with word from Yahoo news of a lawsuit "filed on behalf of a Wyoming couple who said they learned about the PC Rental Agent 'device and/or software' inside the computer they rented last year when an Aaron's Inc. store manager in Casper came to their home on Dec. 22. The manager tried to repossess the computer because he mistakenly believed the couple hadn't finished paying for it, the couple said. Brian Byrd, 26, said the manager showed him a picture of Byrd using the computer — taken by the computer's webcam. The image was shot with the help of spying software, which the lawsuit contends is made by North East, Pa.-based Designerware LLC and is installed on all Aaron's rental computers."

Comments

Whoops

[bfmorgan]

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children and in the process shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:Whoops

[MoonBuggy]

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children and very occasionally they don't get away with it.

FTFY.

Re:Whoops

[dragonturtle69]

Or maybe it just proves, further, that the poor get screwed.

If you have $1,000, you can buy that laptop you didn't plan for, and so didn't save for, but would be really useful now that you are starting higher education. On the other hand, if your income dictates a 12 month period of saving to get that $1,000, chances are that your window of opportunity for schooling has closed before you have the hardware.

Enter the rent-to-own industry, giving you long term low monthly payments, with what amounts to incredible interest rates. The payday advance places are the same. If you make good money, you'll never fell their sting. If you make really good money, you'll never pay interest period, just handling fees.

And now they have, if the story is true, real spyware. What type of dirtbag, including the school "officials" reported a few months back using the webcams on student laptops, spies on someone in this manner?

Re:Whoops

[avgjoe62]

Funny. If you read TFA, you'll see that the couple in question had paid off the computer and now owned it outright. The store manager was mistakenly trying to repossess the computer and that revealed the spyware to them. So, obviously, they could afford the contract. Nothing clear about it.

The point of the article is not poor people make bad decision, get computer repossessed. It was about a company still having spyware on a computer that was owned by their former customers.

Re:Whoops

[Xtravar]

I put tape over my work laptop's webcam. A little paranoid... perhaps... but it makes me feel better.

Re:Whoops

[hairyfeet]

Or maybe it just shows the laws in this country allow the poor to be assraped at will? My GF before I met her ended up having to get a rent to own PC after losing damned near everything but the clothes on her back in a fire. Not only did they royally rip her off on the payments but when she brought it in for a cleaning, which was part of the agreement they ripped off some of the parts and didn't even take a can of fricking air to it!

Soon after we had started dating she asked me to look at it while she was cooking supper (I'm used to it, we PC repairmen are like plumbers that way) and I take one look at the specs VS what it says on the label and I knew she'd been had. Sure enough she called the rent a center the next day and they basically told her "yeah well try to prove it. Sue us and see how far you get".

These assholes make fricking used car salesman look like paragons of honor. They KNOW these poor folks don't know what PCs cost or what is a good chip VS a bad chip, so they gouge the living hell out of them and then on top rip them off any other way they can! I thought the guys at Worst Buy were bad, but at least the guys I knew there were only sniffing around for free porn and MP3s to copy, these rent a ripoffs as I call them are true scum of the earth! And didn't we have laws against usury and outrageous interests rates? WTF happened to those?

That is why you should tell your friends and relatives, especially those that are poor or have poor kinfolk, talk to your local mom&pop shop. We're decent folks and we try our damnedest not to cause someone pain in the wallet. Hell I got three of them right now that is paying me my labor costs at $10-$30 a paycheck, simply because they couldn't afford parts and labor at once, so I found them the cheapest kit deals i could find and let them just pay for the parts and pay my labor as they could, interest free. I'd rather get paid for my time in dribs and drabs than see someone get assraped at these rent a ripoffs. Besides I've found you treat folks right the referrals will keep you busy. These leeches are frankly a blight, no different that those check cashing shysters.

Re:Whoops

[wmbetts]

Personally anytime I'm on my mbp I just sit there nude while I program. If anyone spies on me they deserve what they get!

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) Median is not mean;

(2) I've never met a decent rich guy, and I was brought up in a significantly privileged environment - while I've never used money to decide on my friends, I've never been able to form a lasting friendship with anyone of significant means as they have all failed at demonstrating kindness/selflessness/generosity/etc and end up taking advantage of me when I try to demonstrate same. Causation no, but correlation certainly;

(3) People in debt (e.g. medical bills) don't get to save anything, let alone 10%;

(4) Many people live on the bread line - for any given location, recalling the cost of transport, there is a typical minimum wage which reflects the absolute minimum needed to survive. Many people are on this wage. The idea that you can always "save the remaining 10%" is inherently irrational and contrary to basic market theory: if it's an employers' market, employers will pay the absolute minimum to keep their employees alive and working;

(5) Telling people to "live within your means" is another way of saying, "I should get to enjoy life more than you so please continue suffering so that I can maintain my enjoyment." While I live well below my means, I don't begrudge anyone who feels he should have no less than the greatest glutton;

(6) You pay the state when you work to support you when you cannot. If taxation were at the level of, say, the US 150 years ago, then you might have an argument. It is not and you do not.

Re:Whoops

[realityimpaired]

Not an American, but I usually keep a float of about $1000 (CAD) in my bank account to pay for incidentals, the rest of the overage in my monthly budget goes towards paying my car loan and mortgage off faster. If I wanted to, I could easily put away more (there's a little over $600/mo surplus in my monthly budget), but it makes better economic sense to pay off those large loans faster, in order to reduce the interest that I'm paying overall: if I pay my car loan off 2 years early, I only pay 0.9% interest on the thing (it goes up to 1.9% in the final two years). The mortgage is a higher interest rate anyway, and for now, that's what I'm overpaying.

It's well and good to suggest that people should be saving more money, but there's times where building up your savings is a bad idea. Most poor people aren't even in a position where building up their savings is an option because they simply aren't paid enough, and many if not most middle class people are in the same situation that I am: putting away money is possible, but it's bad economic sense in the long run, because they can save thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars by paying off their debt faster.

Shocking

[hinesbrad]

Wow. A company that built a fortune based on scummy financial deals is being discovered for scummy conduct on computers it sells. Shocking.

On the motherboard?

[Jonah Hex]

PC Rental Agent includes components soldered into the computer's motherboard or otherwise physically attached to the PC's electronics, the lawsuit said. It therefore cannot be uninstalled and can only be deactivated using a wand, the suit said.

Seriously, they had to go with a hardware/software solution, when they could have very easily done it in software only? And what does that do to the warranty from the original manufacturer, soldering new parts into your motherboard usually voids those.

Also, given the demographic of people who "Rent to Own", I'd hate to see some of those webcam shots...

HEX

Rent a computer?

[PhreakOfTime]

There was an ad around here not too long ago about something similar. While I was listening to it, they obviously mentioned the 'monthly price' and the length of the term. Before the commercial was over I had done the math in my head, and the laptop ended up costing almost 4X the amount it would have otherwise cost.

I imagine this is probably similar. Anyone who signs such a deal should immediately be enrolled in a math class that will sufficiently explain amortization costs in such a situation. They should then be able to pass an exam that proves they are aware of what the real cost is, in a single number, over the rental term.

There is a reason the phrase 'A fool and his money are soon parted' exists, I suppose.

Re:Rent a computer?

[adolf]

My math says it's not so different from paying for a new PC with a credit card at not-very-favorable rates.

And, in both cases, there is the opportunity to buy/pay off the thing at any time. Aaron's retail prices tend to be on the high side of things, but not outlandishly so (in my observation).

And for some folks, renting is a distinct advantage: Why buy a thing, just to replace it a year or two later (and fuss with selling the old one), when you can just rent the current thing and have it replaced when it is deemed old?

These aren't leases. They're just month-to-month (sometimes, week-to-week) rentals. Need a fast laptop for a project, with no foreseeable need for one after that? Just rent one.

Want an additional comfy couch for the house and a big TV to watch "the game" on with your pals, and a dedicated fridge to keep the keg cold until it runs out, but have no desire for these things to take up long-term space? Rent 'em. They even drop them off and pick them up. (Hell, with the deposit for them, even the keg+tap might be considered to be a rental...)

Of course, there's the dark side, as well: Want a new computer, long-term, but can't afford one? Rent-to-own might not be the most practical choice.

All that said: I, myself, don't rent anything. I buy my houses and have my own name on the deed, I buy my cars, and I buy my electronics and furniture. I have rented apartments before, but got out of that game as quickly as possible. The closest thing I do to renting things, these days, is Netflix.

But I'm not allergic to the concept.

YMMV.

Re:Rent a computer?

[demonlapin]

You would, but you probably have savings accounts, home access to the Internet, a credit card, a stable address, nobody trying to steal your pocket money for drugs/booze/etc, and a lot more intelligence than these people. If you ban check cashing places, people go to pawn shops; if you ban pawn shops, they go to loan sharks. Rent-to-own is part of the same continuum, in which people who are bad credit risks are able to obtain things they want (but can't afford in lump sum, and won't save up enough to purchase) quickly and easily in return for paying a high cost (that covers the enormous risk of default).

Even when I made the equivalent of $22k/yr in today's money, I didn't do these things. That's one of the many reasons that I'm not still making $22k/year. These people can't delay gratification enough to save up, nor are they smart enough to earn a lot more. The best path is a tough call, because the renters-to-own aren't going to get any smarter - all we can change is whether or not it is possible to lend to them profitably.

you can't consent to child porn

[Joe The Dragon]

you can't consent to child porn and you can't sign away your rights or have stuff in the fine print saying we can read your CC or SS or bank account numbers from the system.

"Crystal gets online before she gets a shower and checks her grades," Brian Bird said. "Who knows? They could print that stuff off there and take it home with them."

He added: "I've got a 5-year-old boy who runs around all day and sometimes he gets out of the tub running around for 20, 30 seconds while we're on the computer. What if they took a picture of that? I wouldn't want that kind of garbage floating around out there."

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[johncandale]

http://www.solresearch.org/~SOLR/rprt/LookNow.asp#Sct_1_NakedKidPics There have been many dozen cases of people taking pics of their baby kids in a bathtub or otherwise half dressed and successfully convicted. I pulled that link in about 10 seconds of google but I'm sure /. and others have better links. Please please read the news once and awhile so you know why people are upset about privacy going bye bye and the myth of "if you have nothing to hide..." Even if you won on appeal, you still have years of your life with the added stress of a young child ruined.

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[Penguinshit]

even when Ma Bell owned the telephones and only leased them to private homes they still needed a warrant to eavesdrop on calls. In the case of corporate resources, those are provided with the expectation that anything done with them is work product (which the company owns).

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to solve - just run Linux, and there's pretty much no chance of the webcam working even if you wanted it to ;)

are "we" really better with our money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested to read these comments regarding the fiscal foolishness of renting and have thought the exact same things when seen similar advertisements. I do wonder if the very rich would say the same about us in regards to buying land and houses though - how many times do we pay for our house at 7% PA over 25 years? Also how many of us have bought computers and gear on our credit cards at 15% PA or something?

It is true that the fool and his money are easily parted but I'm not so convinced that we're that much better than those who rent computers sometimes...

I do feel for those who really struggle and I think some of these attitudes (which I'm guilty off also) are a bit harsh. They're also seemingly more vulnerable to other illogical deals (in regards to the maths) like going in lotteries and other gambling (gee how does that casino pay for all that fancy stuff?). They use pawn brokers for temporary loans at ridiculous interest rates and are more prone to buy shonky cars with limited life/value again at bad interest rates etc.

I'm not any kind of expert in socialology but I'm sure there would have been studies and research done in how the poor are more susceptible to being tricked out of their already meagre resources. Its pretty easy for us "middle class" folks to be a bit wiser and more informed in such things.

Rent To Own

[wlandman]

Many people are taking an arrogant view of these people and there math skills. Yet those same people leaving comments live in houses they couldn't afford to buy outright. They drive cars, they can't afford either. I think most people use the Rent-To-Own because of cash-flow problems, not stupidity. Remember, it only takes one major emergency to help you lose everything. Don't laugh or look down upon these people.

Re:Rent To Own

[GeckoAddict]

The rule you're describing is simple, pay things in the following order of priority:
Loans and payments that can't be discharged in bankruptcy (student loans, child support, etc.)
Secured debt (house, auto)
Unsecured debt (credit card, medical, etc)

And as someone who just had to do it: my wife had a medical emergency that required surgery, and we owed a few grand that I didn't have at the time. I called them up, they asked 'can you afford $150/month? Yes, OK, that will be your payment at 0% until paid'. Medical places would much rather get paid slowly than not get paid at all.

that just makes us look bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at an Aarons Sales and Lease. . As the resident tech guy, I install the PC agent software on all computers before they are sold. If we don't hear from a customer for more than usually around ten days after their bill is due, we send a lock out message. The software pings the server and a red screen pops up asking them to call the store. When they pay or make an arrangement with us, we give them a 7 digit code that unlocks it. It provides ability to view screenshots and take webcam shots but it is only used when a computer is reported stolen and we have a copy of a police report than we utilize it. When they pay out, I go online and mark the agent for uninstall and thats that.

As far at the RTO business model criticism goes, Aaron's at least cost about as much as if you charged it. All the computers have a two year warranty and I provide damn good customer service which makes up for any more of a price difference.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[MimeticLie]

It provides ability to view screenshots and take webcam shots but it is only used when a computer is reported stolen and we have a copy of a police report than we utilize it.

Clearly that isn't the case.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[fermion]

which is all fine and good if the customer was told about this and they initialed next to the section indicating that the capability is there and some random tech would have the ability to watch yo uhave sex so maybe the computer should go somewhere else. Of course if the customer knew, they would tape the camera. So that would defeat the purpose.

What we are talking about is is the right of a firm to have a customer sign away basic rights. For instance, would Aaron's include a cluase that if the rent was late, a rep would have the right to molest a person, child or adult, in the family of thier choice. Of course not. Then why should Aaron's have the right to watch a peep show. Sure the policy is that this feature will only be used under certain circumstances, and I am sure 99.9999% of the well paid professionals that have access to the computer will do this, but really, why take the risk that the one remaining employee is not going to be jacking off to some kid? What is the rational? To catch the customers that say the computer was stolen but in fact are still using it? Does Aarons have such equipment on furniture and TV so they can watch kids make out? I think not, yet they are doing well without it.

This is just a case where a firm is being an arrogant dumbass. If the customers were told and they initialed their consent, then I am wrong. If the customers do not know that some creppy guy is potentially watching the kids run around the trailer, then Aarons deserves to be sued for all it can be sued for. It is not because the business model is inherently bad. It is because firms all to often think they can do anything for profit. Sell drugs to kids, frisk customers on the way out, intimidate them into an upsale. As consumers, even those with just enough money to rent to own, we must assert ourselves as the powerful agents in this relationship. After all, we are the ones that have the money, and the retailers are the one's who need it. By accepting the fiction that we are the weak one's, we allow the retailers to screw us.