Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

If only there was an available and ubiquitous two-way voice communication system a driver and agent could use.

Too bad there is not. The closest thing would be a cellphone, but non-hands free use is illegal in most states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkie-talkie

> Sarcasm

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.

The article says the car would need to be stationary to activate the feature.

Yeah, for the driver to use it. I'm sure the NSA won't be limited by that rule.

Posting that was worth the down votes.

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).

>Too bad there is not. The closest thing would be a cellphone, but non-hands free use is illegal in most states.

Really? As if they couldn't install bluetooth in the cars?

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.

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.

Basically OnStar.

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'."

...

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.

So leave a Nokia brick phone in the glovebox and charge a $300 if the customer doesn't return it.

Putting a decent universal phone charger in every rental car seems cheap and useful enough.

Of course a lot of travelers don't even have a valid phone. Especially foreign tourists.

> but non-hands free use is illegal in most states.

Actually looks like only 15 out of 50 prohibit it.

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.

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

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.

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.

This would still be problematic. What about the people that get into the car with you? They haven't agreed to anything.

Additional fine print. It is your responsibility for informing your guests that there is an active camera in the car.

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.

> any area where they have an expectation of privacy

Can you expect privacy in a box with clear windows?

You can expect privacy in your home through clear windows even if the shades are not drawn.

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.

This is generally true in the US, but you can't be using special equipment (e.g., super long tele lenses.)

Yes. So much, in fact, that having a gun in your car (in some states/situations) can be considered carrying a concealed weapon.

Unless the windows are illegally tinted, a driver's face should be visible from the front and sides of a car.

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.

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?

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.

That's only one phase towards full obsolescence of humans and rental cars overall.

> 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,

Exactly. Remember, Amazon did the same thing with their Fire tablets http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/24/amazon-introduces-mayday-a-...

>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?

>Realistically, these cameras costed, what, five dollars? They're being put in cars that cost twenty thousand dollars.

The labour to install these is not an insubstantial cost.

Nor is the R&D required to integrate a camera with their custom spy gadget/GPS thingy.

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.

Yeah, they said they don't have bandwidth for streaming video specifically. I'm guessing the unaddressed still-photos would come across fine.

*The undressed unaddressed still-photos

Another casualty of net neutrality I'm afraid.

Perhaps scarier is the fact that then AV would be stored on an easily accessible in-car hard drive. For the previous X drivers...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com