Hertz puts cameras in its rental cars, says it has no plans to use them
fusion.net
fusion.net
But, I suspect "has no plans to use them" means "is not prepared to publicly disclose its plans for using them at this time".
EDIT: Actually, the article indicates that they had very firm ideas of how they would be used (for two-way video streaming contact with agents from the device), but that they have "no plans" to use them based on the fact that they currently have insufficient infrastructure -- particularly, in terms of data bandwidth to the car -- to support the intended use.
Given they already have that, adding it to their cars doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
I would rather have waited in line for another twenty minutes and dealt with a live human being than go through that atrocity. They even had two people just standing around to direct customers to the stupid video terminals. Just put them behind the counter and make them normal clerks!
Honestly, I think its one of those features that provides no actual value but looks good in commercials. That doesn't mean its not something a company would choose to provide, though,
They obviously got the intent, and disagreed.
> Walkie-talkie
Limited range, especially through buildings.
Edit: Even more so than I thought, apparently walkie talkies promising tens of miles of range can fail in a couple blocks among houses and trees.
Really? As if they couldn't install bluetooth in the cars?
Personally, I don't use Hertz, and this system would prevent me from wanting to use Hertz. If I need assistance, I can handle calling my own AAA service, and/or Hertz directly.
This system wasn't conceived and installed for the typical HN reader (IMO). I'm guessing the discussion went along the lines of "people already have cameras in their phones and laptops, and they like THOSE. We should put a camera in this too."
Those are cameras users AIM. Not cameras AIMED at them.
Just put a mic in the car, hook output up to the stereo, and install a little button on the dash that auto-dials the agent. Videochat is total overkill in almost every scenario; just build a hands-free "cellphone" into the car.
Basically OnStar.
But they can't do that yet due to bandwidth constraints, so I'm sure there's nothing to worry about</s>
Driver: "Later!"
Car: "You just stopped in traffic. Pickup from this position costs $2000. Leaving your car in this location will increase your insurance rate to $500 per day. Do you wish to continue driving or order a pickup. Say 'continue' or 'pickup'".
Driver: "Fuck you!"
Car: "You just swore at this vehicle. Your insurance rate is now $600 per day. Do you wish to continue driving and have this charged to your account. Say 'yes' or 'later'."
...
Then you'd have the issue of pairing your phone with the car, which for some cars isn't always obvious.
People who don't travel a lot often have phone plans with crappy coverage in random areas.
In short, if you want to ensure a reliable way for someone to contact a customer support person from the rental car company, relying on the users cellphone and hands-free setup is NOT the optimal case.
Of course a lot of travelers don't even have a valid phone. Especially foreign tourists.
Actually looks like only 15 out of 50 prohibit it.
Realistically, these cameras costed, what, five dollars? They're being put in cars that cost twenty thousand dollars.
And given the lead times involved in making your own navigation tablet, can they really wait until they have the rest of the software prepared to start putting these cameras in?
The labour to install these is not an insubstantial cost.
[ ] I agree to pay a fee (subject to change) and to pay the import tax on the package and on every other package ever.
[ ] Send my package back to the UK and I'll never receive anything ever again unless I agree to choice one the next time.
So, pay the fee and agree to the T&C or GTFO. Having already paid for the item and it keeping my car off the road I was left with no choice but to cough up the (extortion) fee.
On that note though, I wonder if their cars will be much cheaper to rent than their competition to make consumers feel better about it.
Can you expect privacy in a box with clear windows?
So yes, it's for insurance reasons -- theirs, not yours.
Sure, but an indoor camera can do a "good enough" job of that too!
In some states, the rental company is technically required to physically check the car with the driver, or minor damage can be disputed later. In practice this is only done for high-end luxury rentals.
As for "abuse" - This can often be detected by the car computer from other sensors, no camera required.
I strongly recommend reading your rental agreement before doing this.
With this in mind I will not rent from Hertz. If I am, however, forced to then I will take the risk of obscuring the camera. However knowing that there is a camera means there is likely a microphone as well - just as concerning, but much harder to obfuscate. Find the pinhole. Or I guess renting from Hertz will require either a short term fuse removal or clever cover for the "NeverLost" unit which will address audio and video.
This black glass rectangle is a piece of liquid crystal glass and it stays opaque when the camera is not in use. It turns transparent only when they want to allow filming.
And the rotating button on the top of the device mechanically controls the direction of the camera. Switch it to 'off' and the camera will not face the interior of the car.
Also, the hackathon screenshots are just quick mock-ups. The developers didn't have access to a working prototype to make them. (Source : I was at this hackathon).
As always, the danger will come from incompetently, corporately developed systems that are vulnerable to hackers who will be live streaming the inside of Hertz cars for lolz.
Perhaps there is non-destructive way to remove power entirely?
Automobiles are equipped with fuse panels. Removing (then, presumably, replacing before returning the vehicle) the proper fuse would be non-destructive, and if this device is properly integrated, would do what you want. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find that this device is actually wired into the radio circuit, so in order to turn it off you'll have to forgo listening to music.
It's also possible that the contract you sign with Hertz forbids removing a fuse for this purpose. IANAL but that would be shitty. To completely CYA, it might be better to remove the fuse, intentionally burn it out by shorting across the battery posts, then return the burned-out fuse to the panel. Then you could plausibly claim "hey the device just stopped working".
Personally I don't have any qualms about pulling the fuse being against the terms. I just don't think it will even be a viable option.
so perhaps initially providing it as a service will eventually convince people that its existence is benign
With expertise and effort, you might find some that meet your needs, but often competition and the marketplace provide no choice for consumers on important issues.
Business customers rent most of the cars. Most businesses have year-long contracts with one of the big companies. That way they get discounts on their rentals. They're not going to make a deal with a small "outfit" that doesn't have national airport coverage.
That leaves leisure customers. Those are very price sensitive. They're not going to spend an extra nickel to rent a car w/o a camera. Sometimes they will put up with taking a shuttle to an off-airport rental to save a few bucks. But, and this is very important, the smaller companies are less sophisticated in terms of customer screening. So the smaller companies are more susceptible to being scammed by customers. So they will probably be even more eager than the big guys to installing cameras, GPSes, etc to keep track of their cars.
Enterprise also owns National and Alamo.
Avis also owns Budget, Payless, and Zipcar.
Hertz also owns Dollar and Thrifty.
If they can't handle the video bandwidth, there is little to prevent an initial audio-only rollout.
I used to think the only way of protesting was not using the particular product, but that's not happening. Homedepot takes my picture when I buy a bolt.(BTY--it's Internsl theft. Treat your employees better and everyone up to the store managers will stop stealing?)
My only form of protection is filming them too. In this case, I'm just talking about cops. I use front and rear cameras on my vechicles. When walking I bring a smart phone and make sure I have the video app accessible.
Keep in mind that most people have a phone with mic, camera, accelerometer, etc. in their pockets most of the time...
A definite gray middle-area, but technically you do not own the car and it is their property. If you want to rent the car then they definitely can record its use to ensure that damages were not from a dog pissing on the seat vs. "i spilled some juice"
Regarding "it is very easy to get riled up about security". Yes, it is - as it very well should be. What happens if I hand a credit card over to a passenger and the "NeverLost" snaps an image of the digits? Highly unlikely but plausible - is Hertz going to guarantee PCI compliance of the footage? What if a group of individuals working for a defense contractor rent a car and are all discussing a secret, or top secret, program they are all cleared for? What are the implications of controlling that data?
I fully understand there is a gray middle-ground - however people have an expectation of privacy in a vehicle today. There are just as many counter-point scenarios to the "dog pissing" one presented (which is rather weak in my opinion).
That leads me to the question: do rental car companies have that much loss with which can be offset by having monitoring capabilities (video and audio)? There is considerable risk and infrastructure cost to implementing and protecting this "feature". I doubt that the amount of loss with regard to the vehicles themselves comes close to an all-encompassing monitoring system which could be based on the features that seem to be apparent in the latest version of "NeverLost". If the utility is for customer experience improvement - again, it's a large risk for Hertz to take on to provide minimal improvement in a rental experience and I doubt they've considered the edge cases that may put them in more fiscal predicament than not having it at all.
If anything these devices should be opt-in, meaning they can be removed by any customer prior to taking the rental vehicle. Customers will make choices based on privacy, if that seems minimal it may be today. But overall awareness exists and is garnering more consideration over time.
Please do not confuse my speaking to what the article states as being entirely in support of it. In fact the article claims that it may be for "live agent connectivity". What use is that? Who knows, but they're obviously cooking up something, that is my point.
> Regarding "it is very easy to get riled up about security". Yes, it is - as it very well should be. What happens if I hand a credit card over to a passenger and the "NeverLost" snaps an image of the digits? Highly unlikely but plausible - is Hertz going to guarantee PCI compliance of the footage? What if a group of individuals working for a defense contractor rent a car and are all discussing a secret, or top secret, program they are all cleared for? What are the implications of controlling that data?
You're goddamn right it's easy to get riled up about that and people should. I don't mean it negatively, more people should care about security.
Again you pose exactly the kind of question that should be asked and for which there is no answer, and likely why they (hertz) are being so damn vague at the moment.
> I fully understand there is a gray middle-ground - however people have an expectation of privacy in a vehicle today. There are just as many counter-point scenarios to the "dog pissing" one presented (which is rather weak in my opinion).
Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence and there are a lot of claims on both sides. Unfortunately that's the problem with picking sides, any given side has tons of evidence to back up their side. I would err on the side of "I would rather not have a camera in face."
> If anything these devices should be opt-in, meaning they can be removed by any customer prior to taking the rental vehicle. Customers will make choices based on privacy, if that seems minimal it may be today. But overall awareness exists and is garnering more consideration over time.
I agree 100%, i prefer the opt-in approach, if anything I would take a front/rear facing cam on the car to protect myself and my rental from liability during operations vs. a camera to talk to an agent.
Several of the comments on the article are over the top idiotic. It's fun to read a couple, but after that it just gets ya sick.
This is not your product that is filled with spy devices. You are renting one of their product and it's their right to make sure you are not mistreating it.
That being said, if they were to sell those recording, yes it would be an issue.
Edit: Yes, your landlord shouldn't be allowed to put microphones and cameras in your apartment. However, when you are renting a Hertz car, you are renting a piece of equipment for a short duration. This isn't a living space we are talking about. It's the short term rental of a piece of machinery.
This is exactly why we have the "right to quiet enjoyment" and privacy when you rent a home.
This car is covered by various insurances and there really is no reason for Hertz to try and spy on the customers.
Inspecting the product after I return it is almost certainly cheaper and easier than building out a massive, distributed monitoring infrastructure. I can't imagine their motives are exactly agreeable with privacy advocates.
A vehicle, by contrast, is equipment that is being rented. There is a greater chance of getting into a wreck with a vehicle than an apartment with the burden of insurance on the car rental company. A communication device such as this could be used for mal-intent, but does any company want a rep for spying on people? More than likely this is being used for safety and insurance in addition to a direct line to Hertz if you get into an accident or require roadside assistance. This is basically going to be OnStar taken to the 2010's of technology.
Most security features are used once the car is flagged stolen. Nobody is going to listen to you sing karaoke in the car.
(I tend to get stuck with Ford Fusions and other shitboxes)