If you want to know...

...what I mean when I say that we live in a thoroughly and completely Upside-Down World, well, then now you know.

I don't know what the vote was, but no matter; the Connecticut Supreme Court is welcome to rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

Comments

[Icarus Goodman]

I guess private business should know better than to butt in to government's cash cow monoplies. I still can't get over how people can be arrested for gambling in a state that has a lotto and 100's of scratch card games. Maybe if the rent a car company would just give uncle sam a cut of the pie, he would look the other way. Upside down indeed.

[Zaphriel]

Why are you mad at connecticut for forcing companies to mind their own business. They where upholding our right to privacy. Actually catching someone in the act of speeding is different than arbitrarily looking up data on your exact speed during a trip and privately penalizing you. The company should keep it's nose out of what I am doing and be happy I rented the vehicle in the first place.

[Theodore Craig]

"Remarkable how quickly state officials will jump on private companies for doing what states do all the time. The court ruled the policy to be illegal regardless of how clear it made the policy in the rental contract."

It is only illegal because they didn't get the money!

If they were the ones getting the money, then it would be just fine, but they are not so it is not! Rubbish!

[Kyle Bennett]

Zaphriel:

Would it be acceptable to you if they weren't happy you rented from them, and politely declined to do business with you anymore? Would you sign an agreement and then deliberately violate it? If you answered a)Yes and b)No, then what's your complaint, exactly? If you answered otherwise, then, go to hell.

[Dave]

Private enterprise can't do law enforcement... that would be vigilantiasm, wouldn't it? Of course, the whole thing is pretty silly...

[Catt]

As if CT isn't making TONS from speeding fines. My last speeding ticket was in CT and the fine was $198 for SEVEN miles over the speed limit. And that was in 1991. I can't imagine what the fines are like now. I thought about asking the trooper if he was working on commission, but then decided that I REALLY didn't want to see the fine for being a smart mouth.

[William Ferrell]

Actually this is a dose of fresh air; yes, the Connecticut court involved should next focus its gaze on the state itself for doing the same thing (though I don't think the state is forcing people to install GPS receivers in their cars and report regularly for "scanning" to make sure speeding isn't occuring), but there's no way private entities should be policing behavior on public roadways. Speeding on a Hertz lot? Sure, rack up the fines. Speeding on a public roadway though? Let the cops do their jobs.

Still, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. States issue speeding tickets based on actual speed in comparison to the posted speed limit in the spot where a person is speeding. Like it or not, but speed limits are set and clearly posted, and exceeding them is an offense of law. Whine about "revenue temptations" all you want, but, well, you were speeding, weren't you? In this case of a private company charging fees for speeding, they don't know where the car was when it was speeding. Suppose it wasn't on a public road. Suppose it was somewhere where speed limits are different (Montana used to not even have a daytime speed limit). There's plenty of ways to introduce plenty of doubt to blow holes straight through that case anyway.

I agree that speeding tickets are largely used as a revenue stream, but it'd go away if people would quit ignoring the damned speed limit (or do something politically about it instead of just complaining when they get busted and not doing anything else). Do you really think the state is just using speeding tickets for revenue? Prove it and do something about it!

Regarding the "speeding fines for private vehicles" thing that's a massive invasion-of-privacy kind of thing. You're punishing behavior that doesn't much cause any real problems. Sure, if you wreck a rental partly because you were speeding, then oh yeah the penalties should stack higher than the tower of Babel, but just racing to get somewhere in a rental without hurting someone shouldn't be an offense or an excuse to tack on fees.

[Richard Nikoley]

William:

Apparently, you don't believe that private entities have a right to voluntarily contract with one another.

Me, I'm for freedom, and I'm willing to take mine straight up. If I don't like the rental comany's policies, I don't have to rent from them.

As someone I recently quoted said, "Take a hikey if you no likey."

[Kyle Bennett]

William: "there's no way private entities should be policing behavior on public roadways"

They're not. Their policing behavior in their own private property. It's doesn't really matter to them one bit whether or not your behavior also occurs on a public highway.

"There's plenty of ways to introduce plenty of doubt to blow holes straight through that case anyway."

Not even the slightest way. Any rational judge - assuming it for some bizarre reason made its way to a public court - would have to ask only one question: "Who owns the car?" Case closed.

[dwhit110]

You've gotta be joking me! A rental car company has no right tracking how fast drivers are motoring down the highways in their cars. Talk about infractions on civil liberties! It's bad enough that the government is doing crap like this, but at least they can shroud a lot of it under the umbrella of protecting the safety and security of society as a whole!

These surveillance issues are getting more and more absurd. What cracks me up are the people championing them! Check-out our new slogan "America, home of the free . . . unless you want to park a trailer in your driveway that residents deem and eyesore."

Pretty soon city councils are going to start legislating the type of curtains that residents can hang in their windows because nutjob residents will begin complaining that they're bringing down their property value. Unbelievable.

[Richard Nikoley]

Not joking at all, man. Like I said: Upside Down World.

You're problem is that you're conflating private and public policy. Consequently, there's no way to take you at all seriously.

[Zaphriel]

Kyle,
"If you answered otherwise than go to hell", those are strong words, am I now no longer entitled to my opinion? It appears that several other comments have been about the same opinion. Private companies have absolutely no jurisdiction over public roadways, to try and enforce such a policy is vigilantism. I have worked very hard in my career defending peoples rights, and being free of illegal search and seizure is one right we have that absolutely should not be violated, and spot-check monitoring IS an illegal search (or monitoring) and no contract made by anybody can make that legal. Consent to monitoring is not absolute and apparently the Connecticut courts agree with that.

I apologize for my caustic tone, but I take offence to the inference that my opinion is invalid and I should "go to hell."

[Richard Nikoley]

Zaphriel:

Why is it that you and those who don't wish to consent to monitoring can't simply decline to rent a vehicle from that company?

How is it that you and those _forcing_ that rental company to bow to _your_ will with respect to _their_ properety is a morally superior position to just simply declining their offer to rent to you, and you going and renting elsewhere?

[John Lopez]

You've gotta be joking me! A rental car company has no right tracking how fast drivers are motoring down the highways in their cars. Talk about infractions on civil liberties!

Well it isn't your car, so you in fact get to shut the fuck up about what conditions of use that the owners put on it.

[Kyle Bennett]

Zaphriel,

My comment was in the context of two questions I asked you: Would you allow a car rental company to not do business with you if they chose? and: Do you keep to agreements that you voluntarily enter into? If your answer is that you would force a company to do business with you, or that you would deliberately break a voluntary agreement, then yes, your opinions are not valid and I wish you a long eternity in hell. You are entitled to the *opinion* that other people's rights don't count, but if you act on it, you are a threat to the rest of us and to our rights. Since you claim to have made a career of this, then I can only conclude that you are a career criminal, acting on your predatory "opinions" every day of your life.

If you would not answer thus, then you have no argument against the actions of the car rental company. It is not about "policing the public highways" it is about how you will use *their* property. If you are claiming that the "victims" of this horrible vigilantism were not presented with a rental agreement that granted permission to the car rental company to do this, then please show me some evidence of that. I highly doubt the case would have made it to the State Supreme Court if it was a simple matter of fraud.

For someone who claims to be a staunch defender of rights, you seem to be willing to ignore some rights when they are inconvenient to you. "No contract made by anybody can make that legal"? So I cannot stipulate under what conditions someone else will use *my* property? It's not rights you have been defending, but license. So, go to hell. I hope you truly take deep offence at this. Maybe it will wake you up.

I apologize for my caustic tone, but to Richard, not to you. I hope that this use of *his* property is in accordance with his wishes.

[Richard Nikoley]

Kyle:

With respect to _that_ part, i.e., civility, I draw distinctions between those proven to me to be general advocates of liberty and those who've proven to be otherwise. I wish the former to be treated with civility, even in the face of deep disagreements and the latter with scorn.