> 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.
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.