Hertz puts cameras in its rental cars, says it has no plans to use them

[Ron Obvious]

Of course they have no plans to use them. Of course not! They're just spending a lot of money alienating customers.

I confess I've never seen this, and I rent a lot of cars, but I suppose I better take some duct tape along next time.

This week I got an angry email from a friend who had just rented a car from Hertz: “Did you know Hertz is putting cameras in rental cars!? This is bullsh*t. I wonder if it says they can tape me in my Hertz contract.” He sent along this photo of a camera peeping at him from out of his “NeverLost,” a navigational device that the company has started putting in many of its cars:

“I even felt weird about singing in the car by myself,” he said. A Googling expedition revealed that my friend was not the first person driven to disturbance by the in-car surveillance system. A Yelp user was revved up about it. Disgruntled renters on travel forums like MilePoint and FlyerTalk want Hertz to put the brakes on “spy cams.” A loyal Hertz customer who rented a car in Chicago said it might make them never want to rent with Hertz again:

The system can’t be turned off from what I could tell. Further investigation revealed that the camera can see the entire inside of the car. I know rental car companies have been tracking the speed and movements of their vehicles for years but putting a camera inside the cabin of the vehicle is taking their need for information a little TOO FAR. I find this to be completely UNACCEPTABLE. In fact, if I get another car from Hertz with a camera in it, I will move our business from Hertz completely.

http://fusion.net/story/61741/hertz-cameras-in-rental-cars/

[NCTraveler]

1. Faux cameras are often placed.

They can be extremely beneficial. They are often real cameras not hooked up. Sometimes the whole thing is fake. It is hard to believe a company would come off this kind of expenditure without a plan to use them.

[Romeo.lima333]

2. why is this a problem?

[Iggo]

4. Because fuck spy cameras.

That ain't obvious?

[Romeo.lima333]

5. it's not a very good spy camera if everyone knows about it

[Iggo]

6. Yep.

[yeoman6987]

29. There a private company and can do what they want

Many other rental companies out there. In five years, they all will have them. I don't blame them.

[Iggo]

31. Yes.

They are and they can.

[LanternWaste]

22. I imagine not everyone wishes to be filmed when driving.

I imagine not everyone wishes to be filmed when driving.

(move goalposts here)

[Romeo.lima333]

28. they should stay out of office bldgs, elevators, stay off street corners,anywhere in public ,

airports - taxi's there are cameras everywhere

[Glassunion]

36. Because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside of a vehicle.

[Romeo.lima333]

40. privacy? youre surrounded by glass

[winstars]

3. Find the camera and then two words: DUCT TAPE.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. That was my first thought but...

that's the fake camera. The real one is the one you can't see.

[Xithras]

35. Lipstick or Elmer's white glue.

When my wifes school bought new desk computers for all the teachers, many of them were angry after discovering that the new all-in-one PC's came with integrated video cameras and that the district could turn them on remotely any time they wanted. Many of them initially stuck tape or sticky notes over the lenses, but their IT department sent out a reminder that affixing ANYTHING to school computers, or modifying them in any way, was strictly prohibited (they can't even change their desktop wallpaper).

So they used lipstick. A little smeared on a fingertip, and then wiped across the lens, makes the camera completely unusable. Some of the others used a little dab of Elmer's glue the same way. IT complains about it, but the teachers just shrug their shoulders and say "It must have been on my finger the last time I moved it." Teachers aren't required to maintain their computers or keep them clean, so there is nothing the school can do about it. The school can't punish the teachers simply for failing to wash their hands before adjusting their screens. And because it can be wiped off easily, they can't be accused of damaging school property

[KamaAina]

8. Yeah! That's the ticket!

Now I have to go home to my wife. Morgan Fairchild. Who I've seen naked.

[KamaAina]

9. Of course they don't have any plans to use them

it's the NSA that does.

[Sherman A1]

10. Easy fix

Rent from someone else.... Game over.

[Savannahmann]

11. Since Hertz is doing it. Expect others to.

Like black boxes in cars, eventually cameras will be in use too. Part of the effort to identify distracted drivers or something.

Here is an idea. Put some duct tape over the lens. Audio sensors would work, so blast the narwhal song and drive the poor bastard listening insane.

[Brother Buzz]

12. I understand Rent-a-wreck is installing Dummy Dome 24/7 LED Flash cameras

Company spokesman stated, "all this cheesy fake thing does is keep honest people honest".

[valerief]

13. You mean they might catch people texting while driving? Heaven forbid!

So don't rent the damn car.

If driving while texting/using hands-on phones was outlawed everywhere AND enforced, I'd say take out the camera and replace it with a computer that can smell alcohol (if that should exist).

[Savannahmann]

16. How about a computer in the car that does all of those things.

Just think how safe the roads would be if the camera was linked to the onboard computer. Once it decided that the driver was distracted, the engine could be cut off and the car could coast safely to the side of the road where no one would be hurt. Unless the car was headed down a hill, then the car could fine the driver for going too fast while the computer was in control.

The Breathalyzer system would be used to start the car, blow into the tube until the system clicks, and whamo we can check for blood alcohol levels. Oh wait, it wouldn't check for other drugs that could impair the driver.

I know, a urinalysis system built right in. You sit in the driver seat, connect the hoses, and then blow into the tube and fill the other tube with a sufficient amount of urine. The computer takes a couple minutes to compile the results and before you know it you're on your way to the quick trip to the store. Imagine how safe the roads would be then.

Instead of shutting the car off, the computer could deliver a tickle of electricity to the drivers seat. You start to drive without paying a sufficient level of attention, and the car gives you a minor electric shock to get your head back into the game.

Do I really need the tag? Really?

[valerief]

41. I think the I Love Guns group misses you. nt

[Savannahmann]

46. Never been there.

I'm in favor of gun control. Actually I'm in favor of banning all guns. Not sure why you threw that out.

[hunter]

14. I haven't rented a car or had a credit card for so long...

... I'm not sure this is ever going to be a problem for me.

I'm pretty sure any modern car is capable of spying on you.

That nice OnStar system can help you in an accident, but more importantly, it can prevent the car from starting if you miss a payment, or tell the police where to find the car if you've quit paying and skipped town too.

I think the automatic license plate scanner technology is scarier. Law enforcement and spy agencies don't even have to depend on your car's electronics to know where you've been.

We bought a former rental car, a 1990's model that had an after-market remote starter disabling device installed in it. That was just before the time, I guess, the auto companies started installing them in all the cars they sold to rental companies, sometimes as simple software in a car's regular electronics. When we bought our car the rental company had probably quit removing the devices from cars they sold because they didn't need to reuse them anymore.

I didn't like the idea that someone could disable the starter on my car by entering a wrong number, so I removed the device.

[Savannahmann]

17. Yes the computers do record your information in your car.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/your-car-as-a-witness-for-the-prosecution

http://www.gjel.com/blog/would-automotive-black-boxes-clarify-car-accident-lawsuits.html

The black box in the car is not built as robustly as the black boxes in airplanes. So there is no way to know how corrupted the data may become. In fact in the case mentioned above, both the State's witness and the Defense Witness agreed that there was no way to know if the black box was working properly prior to the crash, and the modifications to the car could have made the information unreliable.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2005/801-1000/05-887_JurisIni.pdf

Yet the man was convicted, and the conviction upheld because of data that both sides agree is at best, questionable.

http://www.wired.com/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/

It's happening. If the data record does not agree with your version of events, then you are the liar, no matter how unreliable the data may be.

[Ron Obvious]

30. Those OnStar commercials have always been revolting to me

And that's without even being aware of them being able to shut down the car for missing payments.

When we had our home security system installed a few years back, the installer offered to also install a two-way communication system so that the monitoring company could contact me through it if an alarm were triggered. Similar to OnStar, they could turn on the mic at any moment without us being aware of it.

He was amused by my horrified "fuck no!" reaction, and said that most people really liked that feature.

[brooklynite]

18. Simple response: your civil rights aren't being violated.

You're borrowing their car. They have the right to determine the terms. It may not be a good marketing strategy, but it's perfectly within their rights.

[Ron Obvious]

20. I didn't mention anything about civil rights being violated.

I'll grant you that they have the right to do so. It bothers me that we're living in a society in which corporations think this sort of thing might be a good idea. Also, we're increasingly being conditioned to living in a surveillance state both by our government and by the businesses we work for and/or patronise and I detest that.

[tkmorris]

27. No one said otherwise

Of COURSE it's their car. Of COURSE they aren't violating anyone's civil rights. That isn't the point.

They are in the business of convincing people to rent their cars, as often as possible. A move like this doesn't seem as if it will help in that regard. Stories such as this one serve to inform the consumer who may then decide that they would rather rent cars from a company that doesn't install cameras in them.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, that should cut down on the hanky-panky while driving.

The last time I rented a car, it monitored speed constantly. If you exceeded a certain speed, a light would flash on the dashboard telling you that. I assume the rental company also checks how the car was driven. I didn't look at the rental contract, though. The only time it flashed for me was during a passing maneuver. I use the cruise control on the highway, set at the speed limit, unless traffic is heavy, and then I wouldn't be speeding anyhow.

No traffic tickets in over 50 years of driving. That's why.

[Ron Obvious]

23. That sounds a little too much like "if you haven't got anything to hide..." to me

Some years back a guy got charged several hundred dollars after the fact by his car rental company for breaking the speed limit while driving their car. He had used a debit card to rent the car and I have no doubt that this policy was spelled out in the small print of the contract, so he had no recourse. I don't remember the name of the company involved or how it eventually worked out, but that sounds totally outrageous to me.

For the record, I have exactly one ticket in the last 30 years and that was in an obvious speed trap. That's not what bugs me about this. What bugs me is that corporations increasingly think they have an ethical right to spy on their customers and employees.

[MineralMan]

25. Not really. The cars belong to the rental company.

When you rent one, you agree to the terms of the rental contract. If the company wants to include a fee for driving illegally, then that's fine, as long as it's in the contract. Most car rental companies also ban smoking in cars, and you pay a hefty cleaning fee if you violate that rule.

Their car; their rules. Don't like their rules, don't rent a car from that company. Now, it may happen that they all end up having such rules. I don't know.

[demwing]

43. That's the same excuse restaurants used to use

to justify a "whites only" policy.

"You don't like it, eat somewhere else."

[MineralMan]

44. No, actually it's nothing like that.

It's more like your weird cousin from Cleveland saying, "Dude, let me borrow your car for a week." You're going to worry about how he's going to drive it, how far he's going, and more stuff.

The car rental company isn't discriminating against people. It's setting rules for how they use the cars they own. For the smoking deal, they know that a lot of their customers don't want to get into a car that has been smoked in. So, they don't allow smoking in their cars. They're not discriminating against smokers; they're treating all customers alike. No smoking rules make sense for them, and nobody is required to smoke or is born as a smoker. You can't smoke on airliners; you can't smoke in restaurants; you can't smoke in most rental cars.

So, as a smoker, I have to resign myself to not smoking in rental cars. It's not that big a deal, really. If I need or want to smoke, I can stop, get out of the car, and light up whenever I want to.

Trying to make such rules by companies equivalent to racism is really weak. It's nothing like that at all.

[demwing]

45. Yes, it's very much like that

I didn't write that car cams were the equivalent of discrimination, I wrote that the justification that provides for a company to do something legally permissible (at the time) but ethically repugnant is the same.

it's not the cameras that I find problematic, it's the accepting attitude: "If you don't like it, shop somewhere else" -- sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable, but there it is...

[Art_from_Ark]

33. I agree

”What bugs me is that corporations increasingly think they have an ethical right to spy on their customers and employees.”

[liberalhistorian]

21. The number of apologists here for

this Orwellian shit is truly disturbing. Gah.

[Ron Obvious]

24. Frightening isn't it?

I'm surprised too.

[liberalhistorian]

26. Indeed, it is. Twelve years ago when I

first came on here, it would have been not just surprising, but beyond shocking to find that kind of attitude and that poster would quickly have been made to feel very unwelcome. Even a few years ago that may have been the case. But this place has been changing and, sadly, I'm not as surprised to see it here as I once would have been.

[Ron Obvious]

32. It's an illustration of the boiling frog metaphor, I think.

If I had written a Science Fiction novel 30, maybe even 20 years ago, describing a world in which office workers are routinely drug tested, their bathroom visits monitored, and all their computer behaviour spied on, and in which foreign tourists are routinely fingerprinted like a common criminal at our airports, all our telephone and internet communications scrutinised, in which we overshare the most intimate details of our lives on public media even leading to becoming unemployable because of it, and how the vast majority of the population just doesn't seem to care about any of that... I think my novel would have been called a dystopian fantasy.

And yet here we are. I really wouldn't have believed it either.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. You would have been describing the Soviet Bogeyman I learned about in the 70s.

J

[Art_from_Ark]

34. I've come to expect it from certain posters

As you say, it is truly disturbing.

[Renew Deal]

37. There's probably a camera on the outside too.

[ND-Dem]

39. of course not; they're just fake cameras, etc.

[Orrex]

42. They should get a celebrity spokesperson.

Maybe an ex-NFL star.


Hmm...