Comments on: Mercedes-Benz ignores two court orders to track hit and run driver before complying

By: Glenda

Glenda — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:26:00 +0000

I own a Mercedes-Benz. If I were to use my vehicle to take someone’s life and to cause a lifetime of heartache to that person’s loved ones; then I would expect to be hunted down like. You can’t go out and kill someone and expect Mercedes to hide your identity or your whereabouts. I’m disgusted with some of the comments posted. I’m disgusted with Mercedes-Benz, as well. And, yes, I would buy another Mercedes-Benz

By: dont worry about it

dont worry about it — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:34:45 +0000

You wouldn’t have it used against you. You would have it used against people that KILL other people. PEOPLE are more important than STUFF period! Mercedes Benz owners couldn’t grasp that concept anyway.

By: mmac

mmac — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:38:40 +0000

You have got to be kidding me …. iv’e paid for my tracking device(cost of a mercedes benz) and now to have it used against me …. they already use cell phones to trac us (i am in telecoms) who will gurantee that this information will not fall into the “wrong hands” privacy needs to be enforced ALL the time and not played with

By: alex

alex — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:18:30 +0000

complete BS. I expect Mercedes didn’t cave because it was the right thing to do, they caved because the second court-order probably had some financial pentalty. They have no business ignoring a court order – period. I was shopping for new suv for the wife and seriously considered Mercedes – until this story broke. Now she drives the Lexus. They’ve lost my business forever

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:26:52 +0000

evhershey: wouldn’t the *court order* have taken into account the constitution’s provisions that searches be reasonable and with probable cause?

By: John S.

John S. — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:52:41 +0000

Yes, but you’d always feel differently if one of your loved ones was concerned. That’s no way to objectively view or judge a situation — instead, it’s the fear-mongering equivalent of “do it for the children”, which, I’m afraid to say, has done a lot of harm to this country since 9/11.

Personally, I appluad Mercedes’ decision to protect their customer’s privacy. I can only assume that they had to consult with counsel (which, contrary to popular belief, is process that typically consists of more than a five-minute phone call).

All the coulda-woulda is pure a simple speculation. Nothing more. Unless the car was stolen, they shouldn’t have too much trouble finding the registered owner. And let’s not forget that there are plenty of cars out there that do not have GPS tracking. OMG!1! There should be a law against that!!1! Except, that we, the people, do have 4th amendment rights and we should start insisting that the government respect them!

By: Legal Beagal

Legal Beagal — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:59:37 +0000

You’d feel different if it was your wife or daughter that was killed. It might take something like that to make think before insulting the deceased’s family in their time of grief.

By: John

John — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:22:16 +0000

Way to go Mercedes!!!!! F the government

By: Qua67bau

Qua67bau — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:11:39 +0000

Thank goodness for the Germans for helping us protect our privacy. Too bad they don’t make any hardware used in the White House!

By: evhershey

evhershey — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:12:09 +0000

Leave it to a German company to finally protect American privacy guaranteed by our constitution.

Here’s a reminder:
The 4th amendment to the US Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.