▲ 180 ▼ Woman discovers a hidden AI camera in her rental car recording her and warning about unsafe driving (www.techspot.com) submitted 3 weeks ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/privacy@programming.dev 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments 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...
[–] modus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) So pull the fuse, burn it out, re-insert it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) It's interesting how many people here don't seem to have any sort of reservation at all about damaging stuff that doesn't belong to them. It's a car that's been loaned to you for free, that you're using voluntarily. What exactly makes you feel you have the right to just abuse it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Privacy invasion is invasion of human right. They violate my right so i violate their right. Eye for eye reasoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Or you could not borrow the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) 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: The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a "true" rental in that sense. 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. 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. 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. 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Rentals aren't free. Just figured that clarification needed to be made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Yes, but this wasn't a rental. It was a free loaner. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Acting as if the cost of the loaner isn't baked into every service. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) It's interesting how many people here don't seem to have any sort of reservation at all about damaging stuff that doesn't belong to them. It's a car that's been loaned to you for free, that you're using voluntarily. What exactly makes you feel you have the right to just abuse it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Privacy invasion is invasion of human right. They violate my right so i violate their right. Eye for eye reasoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Or you could not borrow the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) 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: The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a "true" rental in that sense. 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. 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. 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. 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Rentals aren't free. Just figured that clarification needed to be made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Yes, but this wasn't a rental. It was a free loaner. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Acting as if the cost of the loaner isn't baked into every service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Privacy invasion is invasion of human right. They violate my right so i violate their right. Eye for eye reasoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Or you could not borrow the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) 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: The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a "true" rental in that sense. 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. 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. 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. 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Or you could not borrow the car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) 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: The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a "true" rental in that sense. 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. 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. 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. 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) 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: The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a "true" rental in that sense. 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. 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. 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. 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Rentals aren't free. Just figured that clarification needed to be made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Yes, but this wasn't a rental. It was a free loaner. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Acting as if the cost of the loaner isn't baked into every service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Yes, but this wasn't a rental. It was a free loaner. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Acting as if the cost of the loaner isn't baked into every service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Acting as if the cost of the loaner isn't baked into every service. permalink fedilink source parent