this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
155 points (97.0% liked)
Privacy
4941 readers
202 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Given it's not her property, that sounds like a quick way to a lot of legal liability.
Pulling a fuse isn't destroying
Covering a camera isn't either
I will not let a company watch my every move, period
Legal liability can result from more than just destruction of property. It's not her property, there's likely limits on what she's allowed to do with it, period.
Then don't use somebody else's car? There's nothing in the law that says you can use another's property however you like.
This was about rental cars
It was not. It was a loaner. Article is shit.
So pull the fuse, burn it out, re-insert it.
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?
Privacy invasion is invasion of human right. They violate my right so i violate their right. Eye for eye reasoning.
Or you could not borrow the car.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Have you watched the video?
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.
Is a fuse not property? What is it, an idea?
Yes.
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.
Rentals aren't free. Just figured that clarification needed to be made.
Yes, but this wasn't a rental. It was a free loaner.
Acting as if the cost of the loaner isn't baked into every service.
Blue tape