A recent news item, however, alarms me even more than the shopping card scam.  A chap named James Turner recently rented a car in Connecticut from a large rental car company.  He drove it where he needed to drive it and then returned the car as planned.  At the return counter, he discovered he had been "fined" $450 over the rental contract amount for speeding while he was driving the rented car.  The car he had rented had been equipped with some kind of high tech device which, Turner believed, was one of those things which helps you get where you wish to go without getting lost.  (Such devices would probably save a few marriages.)  However, the innocuous little gizmo did that and much, much more.

     It seems the device not only told the car rental company the exact location of its car at any given moment, it also constantly monitored the vehicle's speed while in operation.  Further, somewhere in the fine print of the car rental contract (the part where the rental agent puts the "X" and says, "Just initial here") it permitted the rental company to "fine" the driver $150 each time the car exceed 79 miles per hour during the rental period.  The miscreant in this story had exceeded 79 miles per hour three times and was being charged $450 for his devilish deeds.  Indeed, Turner was told by the rental company he had been tracked by satellite across seven states.

     "Wait!" you say, "Why did he not refuse to sign the credit card when he returned the car?"  Because, my fellow consumers, the car rental company had already charged the $450 to his credit card account before he returned the car.  The company had received the data for each transgression over 79 miles per hour and rung the cash register for $150 each time their onboard corporate traffic cop sent a signal home telling on the poor, unknowing fellow at the wheel.  So, Mr. Turner was not only shocked to learn of the $450 "fine" when he returned the car, he was further shocked to learn that his credit card had already been charged that amount before he knew it.

       What's wrong with this?  Got a few hours?  First, it places the rental car company in the role of policeman, which is likely an unconstitutional delegation of exclusive governmental authority.  And while we are discussing the Constitution, can the car rental company say "Due Process?"  Turner had no opportunity to challenge the charges or otherwise "defend" himself of the "charges."  Further, the invasion of privacy allowed by such a scheme is plain and as outrageous as the greed of the car rental company.  What if Mr. Turner went somewhere he did not wish anyone else to know about?  Car rental contracts used to say "Do not drive this car into Mexico."  Now they should say "Don't drive this car anywhere you don't want us to know about."

       To his credit, Turner is taking the car rental company to small claims court over the $450 charge, but the issue here is not a small one.  As technology relentlessly advances, we must heighten our vigilance to assure that our privacy is not swept away in its wake.  Otherwise, surprises such as Mr. Turner experienced may become more and more common in our daily lives.