If it really has no plans to use them and has spent money putting them in its cars, HTZ shareholders should be furious.
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.
The article states that the video conferencing feature would only be available for use when the vehicle is stopped. In other words, any time you were able to use it you would also be legally allowed to use a cell phone.
I travel, a lot. And rent a lot of cars.
More than once, by the time I get to my rental car my phone is near-dead and a charger isn't always handy.
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.
If you're building hardware into the car itself, there is no reason why it shouldn't be hands-free.
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.
But that doesn't have a camera which could be used to spy on you and gauge your facial reaction and vocal sentiment to algorithmically price your insurance / rental risk based on your frustration / road-rage score.
But they can't do that yet due to bandwidth constraints, so I'm sure there's nothing to worry about</s>
Car: "You just swore at another vehicle. Your insurance rate is now $400 per day. Do you wish to continue driving and have this charged to your account. Say 'yes' or 'later'."
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'."
Yes, they could.
Then you also need an easy automated way to unpair devices, or else you end up with 50 phones enrolled and the pairing setup can't handle any more. And you have to assume your average renter knows/expects this, and pairs their phone properly, BEFORE they are in a potentially stressful situation where they are trying to contact an agent.
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."
They could simply queue the devices. FIFO. What are the chances that someone will be the 51st person to rent a car will be the same person who first rented the car? And if it does happen, what's wrong with just re-pairing? Finally, add a clause in the rental agreement that the renter is personally responsible for unpairing the device. Otherwise, their phone will stay in the car's device list until it finally gets pushed out of the system at an indeterminate time, which depends on future rental volume.
>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.
You're being downvoted because it's irrelevant to the thread, which was asking why a cell phone isn't sufficient. The NSA can already turn on cell phones remotely so there's still no huge difference. If you wanted to make a useful comment, perhaps point out how LE might be able to get around getting a warrant by abusing Hertz or something (if, say, Hertz adds to it's agreement that it can record and analyze video with any 3rd parties for any reason).
It is illegal to film someone without their knowledge in any area where they have an expectation of privacy. This is why, as mentioned in the article, Corvette owners were told not to use the valet video feature in their cars. As for the author's concerns about audio, it is even more restricted than video. So, I wouldn't be too worried about this...until a senator manages to work a law allowing rental car companies to do this into a random spending bill.
It's not even a question of there being a conspiracy, it's just a combination of incompetence and apathy. As an example of how easy your scenario is to achieve I received a letter from the courier division of the Norwegian postal service last Saturday. It asked me to complete a form and the form was this:
[ ] 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.
Does it need to be a fine print? (why not something that's easy to see?) Here in New Zealand, some of our taxis have cameras. So even before entering the vehicle, it has "Under surveillance" or whatever on the windows, and additional stickers inside the car.
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.
Why can't Chevy put in some kind of "beep beep you are being recorded in valet mode" warning when the door is open and that mode is on. That would cover any reasonable case here.
Considering how many things are allowed to take pictures of you in your car (red light cameras, EZPass, ALL OTHER TRAFFIC CAMERAS) I'm going to go ahead and assume a judge would determine that a person in a car with windows and a windshield and whatnot has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Really? I didn't know that. I thought anything that could be photographed or videotaped while standing on public access land is fair game.. i.e. if I stand on the sidewalk and take a photo of you inside your house.
When and why would anyone need to see the driver or the driver a CS rep? How does that help in any kind of scenario that is relevant to driving a rental vehicle? Seriously, can anyone come up with a legitimate and relevant use-case?
> When and why would anyone need to see the driver or the driver a CS rep? How does that help in any kind of scenario that is relevant to driving a rental vehicle?
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,
To take one example, the details of rental car controls can sometimes be unfamiliar. I've generally been comfortable pulling out the manual in those situations, but I'm sure some people would prefer a live walkthrough, if available.
Seeing the rep makes sense, but the rep doesn't need to see you. Unless you've broken off the car controls in your hand and want to show them. Otherwise it seems rather a massive net negative.
I was thinking along the lines of a five minute video clip available when you rent- kind of a training, if you will, like they have for personal watercraft. Optional, but available.
When you go rent a car from Hertz, they have video kiosks for the CS reps, so instead of dealing with someone in-person, you talk to a computer monitor with a webcam, and there's a live person on the other end video chatting with you.
Given they already have that, adding it to their cars doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.
I had to do that for a recent trip to Las Vegas, and in all honesty, that was the worst experience I've ever had with renting a car. Terrible voice quality, terrible video quality, extremely awkward, difficulty holding a handset while also trying to fish my driver license and credit card from my wallet and slide them through the reader.
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!
I used the same device recently but it wasn't that bad, but I agree on the audio quality. I don't care about seeing your face if it sounds like I'm talking through a fax machine.
>If it really has no plans to use them and has spent money putting them in its cars, HTZ shareholders should be furious.
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?
It looks like they're part of their proprietary navigation tablets, which means that it's probably being installed by a contract manufacturer in china.
The communication system could theoretically be useful, especially for renters from other countries who might not be able to cost-effectively use cellphones. There's no need for video that I can see though. An audio-only system would be sufficient.
I don't see the use of an inward looking camera. I can see the use of an outward looking camera --as Russians can attest, this can prove useful in insurance claims against you. If you allow the camera, you get a ten, twenty percent discount, whatever. But inward looking, what would that assist with other than invasion of privacy?
So that Hertz can show that the driver abused the rental. Perhaps they smoked in the car, broke interior parts, had someone not on the contract behind the wheel, or other reasons. Live streaming isn't required for this - it takes a snapshot when the car is started, when g-forces indicate it's been in a crash, or even every 2 minutes "just in case".
So yes, it's for insurance reasons -- theirs, not yours.
I was told by a lawyer that its good practice to do a walk-around 'pre-flight' inspection with a rental car before driving off. If there is any damage, it should be reported immediately.
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 don't buy the argument about customer service. Why, and under what circumstances would it ever be necessary for a CS rep to see the driver? There is none that does not violate various principles that have nothing whatsoever to do with assisting a person renting and driving a vehicle.
IIRC, some hertz rental locations already have kiosks that support video chatting with CS reps. This would seem to be an extension of that same functionality.
And Hertz is going to do what exactly? Let's say I rent a vehicle and something happens to cover the camera. If in fact I get notified while I have the rental vehicle what Hertz has said publicly is a lie (epic failure scenario #1). Second, what are they going to do to me as the customer? Are they going to charge me a penalty for obstructing the camera (epic failure scenario #2)? Again - they would put themselves in an awkward position bringing about the infraction.
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.
Huh. For the last car I rented in Iceland, I was told that they had a GPS tracker on the car (supposedly only to be read with contact to the car) but would only check the data if there was a dispute about damage to the car which looks like it happened by driving one of the mountain roads (which is not allowed with 2WD).
If it's anything like the extremely terrible devices in their current vehicles, those are custom device similar to existing off-the-shelf GPSes. If they're in any way based on Android, they've gone well out of their way to completely replace the UI with something entirely unlike Android.
The new devices are actually much different than the clunky old ones you're referring too. I wouldn't be surprised if they were exactly a commodity Android tablet.
What you're looking at is an LED and a reflector. The camera is right next to it behind the black glass rectangle.
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).
I'm guessing this is probably corporate tone deafness rather than something sinister - it seems quite believable to upsell customers to a "gold" package that offers live video conferencing to Hertz staff to "book me a hotel and dinner" (at least believable that the corporate marketing department would think this is a good idea).
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.
I agree. I have been avoiding them since a nasty fracas where they wouldn't rent my reserved car to me without the credit card that I had used to reserve the car (even though I presented valid ID.) Trying to rent another car on the spot resulted in an atrocious quote, all while trying to talk to some guy on a screen instead of a real person behind the counter.
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".
IANAL, but I have worked on surveillance software. As far as I understand it would be virtually impossible for them to legally have a microphone running without you explicitly activating it. Signing the rental agreement is not explicit enough since other people could be traveling in the car and the definition of "consent" varies significantly between jurisdictions.
from an insurance perspective even a still photo of who was behind the wheel at the time the vehicle is in motion is invaluable, from a customer perspective it comes down to the desire for privacy weighted against perceived benefits of allowing the camera to be activated without your control.
so perhaps initially providing it as a service will eventually convince people that its existence is benign
The picture of the device in question makes it look like it might be some COTS product; perhaps the vendor Hertz has been buying from all this time decided to throw in the camera and Hertz just decided "well fuck it, it's not like we're paying more for it, so we'll just leave it switched off"?
It'll be up to consumers to decide if it bothers them or not. There are plenty of other rental car companies out there, not to mention a few startups trying to disrupt the space. If Hertz makes the wrong move here, they're going to hurt from it.
Not if the others do the same. For example, which smartphone will you buy that protects your privacy? Which app will you download?
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.
If one company decides not to install cameras and consumers flock to that company, then they've decided. There are enough small rental car outfits out there that can't afford cameras to put this theory to the test. The rental car market is not the ogilopoly that is the tech hardware industry these days.
It is an oligopoly, at least in the USA. See my previous post nearby.
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.
Why would they say they have no plans, when it would be obvious even to a deafblind dead man that they are trying to roll their own OnStar, with video?
If they can't handle the video bandwidth, there is little to prevent an initial audio-only rollout.
This is an interesting one for state wiretap laws, especially if there's a hot mic. Is there an expectation of privacy in a rental vehicle? Tapping a vehicle you own would definitely violate most state wiretap statutes.
I think it would make sense that Hertz cars have cameras, but the memory card should be visible by the customer and he should be able to easily delete its contents.
Or, the FBINSAGOV(I don't even like to use any buzz words casually) told them to install the cameras? Anyway, all this cheap technology is bitting us in the ass? O.K. the
government can track you in a rental car--so will the Hackers?
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.
The presence of a mic and camera in a rental car can be debated.
However, WRT to intention, it seems it was to provide a better service to customers through video communication. I'm thinking (given that it's default for Gold) that they were thinking of a Concierge service.
Keep in mind that most people have a phone with mic, camera, accelerometer, etc. in their pockets most of the time...
the verbiage is crappy and vague, but I can see a use if you need support or help and they want to give you a personable experience. That said, this issue is two-fold...it is very easy to get riled up about security (especially as it seems we lose more and more freedoms each day to "securing" our nation). On the other hand, this offers them the ability to improve the customer experience. They just could not have picked a worse way to introduce the device, especially since they are not ready to publicly talk about its use-cases.
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"
I'm curious how having the capability to either take a picture of me or possibly have a video conference improves the end user experience? First of all - doing the latter would involve me being forced to stop a moving car to engage in such an interaction. I have a rental car because my intent is to drive somewhere, not interact with someone I do not know through means of video. "Personablity" does not play into this conversation at all unfortunately - unless a random Hertz employee complimenting me on my attire or hair style at a given moment is a contributing factor to my car rental experience.
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.
> I'm curious how having the capability to either take a picture of me or possibly have a video conference improves the end user experience? First of all - doing the latter would involve me being forced to stop a moving car to engage in such an interaction. I have a rental car because my intent is to drive somewhere, not interact with someone I do not know through means of video. "Personablity" does not play into this conversation at all unfortunately - unless a random Hertz employee complimenting me on my attire or hair style at a given moment is a contributing factor to my car rental experience.
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.
I have no problem with cars being tracked at all. Every car should be tracked. There are far too many accidents involving cars. Over 1.2 million people each year are killed in car accidents.
This is not an issue. You rent a car, a 50k+ product. You should expect there to be a GPS, Camera, Mic, etc.
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.
Well I hope my apartment that I'm renting doesn't also come with mics and cameras, even if there are "no plans to use them."
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.
The apartment argument is faulty. You're leasing the apartment for a long-term stay in addition to having laws requiring privacy in your own home. A landlord, for example, does not have the right to enter an occupied home without permission.
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.
Your argument is faulty. You rent a hotel room for a short term stay just like the car. You have an expectation of privacy in a hotel room just like in a car. If you disagree then you should be the last to complain when a private moment at a hotel room of you is leaked on the internet.
But you don't carry the hotel room with you. A car is a piece of equipment. You use that piece of equipment in public. I don't see why there should be an expectation of privacy.
Most security features are used once the car is flagged stolen. Nobody is going to listen to you sing karaoke in the car.
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.