Ex-Cabinet minister David Davis today called for the Government to investigate. “This is not the first time big business has behaved like Big Brother — but it’s rare to be quite as deceitful as this. I have to question whether it is even legal to pass on information to other people such as bailiffs. I would think the relevant minister ought to look very closely at the legality of this procedure.â€
Human rights group Liberty said Mercedes’ actions were disturbing and part of the “creeping growth of surveillanceâ€.
Here’s the kicker: apparently at the beginning of any lease or finance contract with MBUK it’s spelled out in BIG BOLD LETTERS that MBUK may use tracking technology to locate the vehicle in the event that they have to repossess the vehicle.
Given that every street corner in the UK has a camera it would seem privacy advocates have other things to worry about. Seems reasonable if you are leasing and you sign a lease that spells out they can track your car.
Seriously, I wonder about the legality of clauses like that in lease agreements. It kind of reminds me of the EULAs for software, or Terms of Service for…just about everything you do online.
Even if you read the agreement in detail, you have no option to negotiate or object to specific provisions. It’s a take it or leave it proposition, designed and obscured by the provider solely on their terms.
Given that every street corner in the UK has a camera it would seem privacy advocates have other things to worry about. Seems reasonable if you are leasing and you sign a lease that spells out they can track your car.
Slight over exaggeration there. It really doesn’t, not anywhere near.
Anyway I’m not that surprised about the tracking. They’re tracking their car, not the person.
Well, you’re linking to The Sun, which isn’t exactly known for its restrained, level-headed reporting. Query as to how widespread and deep the backlash really is.
Given that Mercedes appears to only use the tracker if/when someone is in default and they need to repo, I don’t have a problem with that. I’d be more concerned if they were continuously tracking and then monetizing that data.
Lease. You don’t own the car, they do. You just have a complex rental agreement.
Most RAC’s in the works GPS their more expensive vehicles.
Most zero/subprime credit in the US has a GPS tracker on their car…
What ever happened with some companies being able to remotely disable the vehicle?
SID’s (Starter Interrupt Device) are still widely in use, though usually only on deep subprime, and some states (NV) have outlawed their use. They come in various types, the least/most effective being the payment reminder where there is a buzzer that goes off in your car when you are late/haven’t made your payment. I say least/most because that buzzer is very effective…until the customer rips the entire system from the car. Then us lenders get a tamper alert & usually have to go find the car. Which is ez to do now with LPR tech (license plate recognition); repo agents have cameras built into their trucks & receive a notification/alert everytime they drive past a car that is out for repo with one of the larger national firms…
Leased cars don’t belong to the customer. So what’s the issue?
BMW also can track your car. But they only do if you aren’t paying your payments and they need to repossess the car.
Maybe, you should make your payments… just a thought.
There are a few issues though.
Who has access to the system?
What safeguards are in place to ensure it’s only used for the intended purpose?
Will MB/BMW cooperate with law enforcement on issues not related to repossession?
What safeguards are in place to keep the system from getting hacked by a 3rd party?
Leased cars don’t belong to the customer. So what’s the issue?
BMW also can track your car. But they only do if you aren’t paying your payments and they need to repossess the car.
Maybe, you should make your payments… just a thought.
There are a few issues though.
Who has access to the system?
What safeguards are in place to ensure it’s only used for the intended purpose?
Will MB/BMW cooperate with law enforcement on issues not related to repossession?
What safeguards are in place to keep the system from getting hacked by a 3rd party?
I can only speak for how it works in Canada. Privacy laws are much stricter than they used to be and there are big fines for non-compliance. I know for certain (because I work there) that one of these two companies takes it very seriously. I have no idea how seriously the other company takes it.
Two people here have access to this tracking system.
I don’t know about the law enforcement question but the tracking would only tell where the car is, not where a person is.
I’d be more concerned if they were continuously tracking and then monetizing that data.
It’s be surprised if they were not.
Article says that they do not, and my impression of BLeP’s prior post was that the company he works for in Canada does not either I think they’d be likely to run in to privacy law compliance and regulatory scrutiny issues at least in the EU, even if lessees did purport to agree to it by contract (which everybody seems to think is some open license to do whatever the lessor wants).
I’d be more concerned if they were continuously tracking and then monetizing that data.
It’s be surprised if they were not.
Article says that they do not, and my impression of BLeP’s prior post was that the company he works for in Canada does not either I think they’d be likely to run in to privacy law compliance and regulatory scrutiny issues at least in the EU, even if lessees did purport to agree to it by contract (which everybody seems to think is some open license to do whatever the lessor wants).
I don’t know anything about the situation so I very well could be wrong. However, my guess is they’re monetizing the hell out of the data without the customer info attached, similar to Windows anonymous usage information. I’m almost certain Tesla does the same thing.
I’d be more concerned if they were continuously tracking and then monetizing that data.
It’s be surprised if they were not.
Article says that they do not, and my impression of BLeP’s prior post was that the company he works for in Canada does not either I think they’d be likely to run in to privacy law compliance and regulatory scrutiny issues at least in the EU, even if lessees did purport to agree to it by contract (which everybody seems to think is some open license to do whatever the lessor wants).
I don’t know anything about the situation so I very well could be wrong. However, my guess is they’re monetizing the hell out of the data without the customer info attached, similar to Windows anonymous usage information. I’m almost certain Tesla does the same thing.
Your guess is contrary to what the article says Mercedes is doing (though as always, what they say they’re doing and what they actually are doing could be different).
Also, what flies under US privacy laws is often different than what EU and EU member country laws permit. GDPR in particular is reshaping what companies can do in terms of data collection and exploitation. An overarching goal of the GDPR is to discourage companies from indiscriminate data collection and monetization ‘just because they can’ - data collection and use typically is supposed to be tailored to a specific, legitimate purpose. In this case, the car trackers have a legitimate purpose when being turned on to locate a vehicle whose owner is in default on payments. Much less clear that it’s a legit interest of the car company to have that tracker on at all times for the purposes of making extra money off of personal details of people driving the car, and making that a condition of the lease agreement.
