
Hertz puts cameras in its rental cars, says it has no plans to use them - eplanit
http://fusion.net/story/61741/hertz-cameras-in-rental-cars/
======
dragonwriter
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.

~~~
downandout
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.

~~~
Fuzzwah
Surely fine print on your rental agreement could let you know you could be
filmed.

~~~
dhimes
Indeed. Eventually it won't even be fine print. They will all do it, and you
will have the choice of renting a car or not.

~~~
kagamine
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.

------
mc32
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?

~~~
chiph
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.

~~~
neurotech1
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.

~~~
ma2rten
Enterprise Santa Monica does that.

------
wahsd
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.

~~~
eric_h
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.

------
ChuckMcM
With no plan to use them, they suffer no economic harm if I remove it then
right? :-) Or what if we put opaque camera lens stickers over them?

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Or what if we put opaque camera lens stickers over them?_

I strongly recommend reading your rental agreement before doing this.

~~~
windexh8er
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.

~~~
kaybe
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).

------
evan_
I assume the "NeverLost" device is just a rebadged commodity Android tablet
that includes a camera.

~~~
JoshTriplett
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.

~~~
tfe
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.

------
sup14
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).

------
smegel
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.

------
tfe
I know I can obstruct the camera lens, but does anyone know how to effectively
block the microphone on a device like this?

Perhaps there is non-destructive way to remove power entirely?

~~~
dragonwriter
The simple solution is just _don 't use Hertz rental cars_.

~~~
abawany
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.

------
Shivetya
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

~~~
teej
What I suspect is that they will offer a "safe driver discount" to those who
don't opt-out, effectively charging a fee for privacy.

------
msoad
Camera is easy. You put a tape on it's lens but what about the mic?

~~~
iagooar
Take an earphone with some ductape and play an annoying song loud into the
microphone.

~~~
lessthanzero
The point is to find it. The microphone could be everywhere.

~~~
iagooar
Well, if the device is tablet-like it probably will be near the camera /
screen.

------
yellowapple
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"?

------
jadeddrag
Car2go records audio, which should be more disturbing, but most people don't
seem to care.

~~~
adrianpike
Not seeing anything in any of their privacy policies, trip agreements, or
T&C's, and this is the first time I've heard that, got a source?

------
bsbechtel
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.

~~~
hackuser
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.

~~~
bsbechtel
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.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
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.

------
logfromblammo
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.

------
lvs
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.

------
6t6t6
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.

------
aeykie
No plans on how to use them vs Plans to not use them. Sneaky.

------
hippich
Nothing that chewing gum from corner store won't fix :)

------
edgan
I bet this will be used by the FBI in the short term. They secretly track
cars. A camera in the car would make this even easier.

~~~
marincounty
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.

------
random3
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...

~~~
MichaelGG
How does having a camera help deliver a better service? What real use cases
are there for the rep needing to see from that viewpoint?

------
chvid
Hey - this is great. It must mean that the insurance Hertz is selling now gets
much cheaper ... No?

------
killertypo
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"

~~~
windexh8er
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.

~~~
killertypo
> 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.

------
scrrr
Well, this will go on until consumers react.

------
malkia
Big Brother Hertz :)

------
megablast
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.

~~~
hueving
Those two things have jack shit to do with each other.

------
adanatturack
To me this does not seem like an issue to get worked up over. If they called
it OnStar would it then be ok?

~~~
Someone1234
OnStar has cameras in your car?

------
JustSomeNobody
Seems much ado about nothing. They had a use case, ordered the HW, decided not
to use it.

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.

------
Raphmedia
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.

~~~
mholt
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.

~~~
samtho
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.

~~~
Cheapshot
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.

~~~
Raphmedia
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.

