A woman recently took to social media after discovering that her Audi rental car's dashboard contained a camera recording her every move. It also gave verbal reminders...

A woman recently took to social media after discovering that her Audi rental car’s dashboard contained a camera recording her every move. It also gave verbal reminders…

  • Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    5·
    6 hours ago

    There is a significant difference between “property destruction” and “not abiding by the terms of the contract”. IMO this situation would fall under the latter, but watch the video in the linked article first to get the full context.

    Facts based on the video:

    1. The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a “true” rental in that sense.
    2. As with most loaner cars, these are offered as a convenience for the customer while their car is being serviced or repaired. In this case, her own car was in for a cooling system repair and had already been driving the loaner for a few days before noticing the camera.
    3. Not everyone immediately notices otherwise “obvious” things like this since, again, this was a loaner car that she was excited to experience. This is stated plainly in the video.
    4. There is an implication in the video that she was not informed about the camera. We don’t know if she signed any paperwork that stated as much, since that info isn’t given.
    5. She acknowledges on camera that, had she known about the camera, she would’ve happily paid $700 for a traditional rental.

    There is some expectation of privacy when inside a vehicle, and that includes rental vehicles. Being recorded by a camera installed in a rental/loaner/whatever vehicle that is lent to you based on a contract, without being informed of said camera, is a massive invasion of privacy, no matter how you slice it.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      6 hours ago

      There is a significant difference between “property destruction” and “not abiding by the terms of the contract”. This situation falls under the latter.

      The suggestion we’re replying to was to burn the fuse, not just pull it. How is that not maliciously damaging property?

      If you’re that opposed to it, put your money where your mouth is and don’t take the free loaner. She would have seen it the moment she stepped into it, there’s nothing stopping her from returning the car.

      Objecting to surveillance in public is one thing, objecting to surveillance of private property that’s on loan to you and that you can return at any time is just self entitlement.

      • Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        6 hours ago

        The suggestion we’re replying to was to burn the fuse, not just pull it. How is that not maliciously damaging property?

        Automotive fuses are specifically manufactured to be the first thing to fail. That’s the entire reason fuses exist. Going from that to “maliciously damaging property” is an unreasonable leap.

        If you’re that opposed to it, put your money where your mouth is and don’t take the free loaner. She would have seen it the moment she stepped into it, there’s nothing stopping her from returning the car.

        Have you watched the video?

        Objecting to surveillance in public is one thing, objecting to surveillance of private property that’s on loan to you and that you can return at any time is just self entitlement.

        She is clearly not a car person. You would be absolutely shocked at how many people do not know the difference between an Audi Q7 (the loaner vehicle in question) and, say, a Toyota Highlander. Based on that, it’s reasonable to assume that there is a spectrum of car knowledge, and she was clearly excited to drive “a brand new Q7” (again, straight from the video), which can very easily distract one from noticing such things.

        Many manufacturers place all sorts of bulky equipment such as sensors, cameras (Subaru’s “Eyesight” system), and other such things up at the top of the windshield, so at a glance to a non-car person who isn’t already familiar with how the vehicle should look, it could have looked just like something integrated into the car straight from the factory. But again, we don’t have that info. All she said was she didn’t notice it for a few days.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          6 hours ago

          Is a fuse not property? What is it, an idea?

          Have you watched the video?

          Yes.

          All she said was she didn’t notice it for a few days.

          Yeah that part is hard to draw any conclusion on, given the utter lack of info about whether they informed her and she didn’t realise, or wasn’t informed, or anywhere in between.

          My comments are not really directed at her in particular, but mostly rather at the bunch of people in this thread proclaiming how they’d deal with the equipment. Assuming they made the choice with full awareness, I’m really really interested in how they twist their moral compass around to justify it. I’m fully certain if it was their property they would have a very different viewpoint.