Indeed. I’m sure there is already language in the terms against driving the vehicles with people in the cargo space. Breaking this could result in some penalty. If the company found, of course.

Unfortunately, if they were to bundle up dozens of these individuals renting trucks on behalf of ICE and were then able to go after the agency itself for this practice of purposefully violating their TOS, the opposition is the government. I wouldn’t put it past the current administration to nationalize U-Haul as punishment in such a situation.

I agree about the punitive damages. There should be life long consequences for everyone involved with ICE.

Oh I wasn’t referring to WeirdGoesPro themselves. I replied to them because they had a similarly circular conversation with MushuChupacabra as I did.

It’s not complicity when a customer uses your product outside the ToS.

I agree. The employment and purposes of the individual renting the trucks were unlikely to have been disclosed while the vehicle was being rented.

… if Uhaul takes no measures to prevent this in the future, then Uhaul is complicit.

I think that falls more to complacency than complicity, but I see your point. As I’ve written in a few other comments here, I’m not sure what ‘measures’ could be implemented by any rental company to prevent undisclosed use of their vehicles.

There are only two routes I can think of to effect this situation. Some reactionary method; barring the listed customer from future rentals if the service becomes aware of the misuse, maybe install dash cameras in some tamper resistant way. Or a preventative method; ending rentals entirely and pivot to a full service moving company.

If you have a suggestion, I would like to hear it - it’s why I asked the question in the first place, and so far haven’t seen an answer to it.

If anyone could tell me where to point my carrier pigeon, I wouldn’t mind sending in a resume.

Isn’t it disheartening to engage a conversation where the other party moves the goalposts at every opportunity while claiming moral superiority? They just invoked the Proud Boys as a precedent setting group as if that’s something to be aspired to.

youtube.com/watch?v=rgpRlNxQ3HM

I wouldn’t assume that to be the case given the political climate. Some comedians, if invited to this event, would acknowledge that their fanbase would shrink after participation to the point of the money not being worthwhile. The ones that attended must feel their base either won’t care and therefore won’t change in size, or would be enthralled to see them attend and therefore grow in size or intensity or both.

If it were a universal truth that Riyadh performers would lose their careers as a result, no one would have went to perform. And so the choice becomes financial vs idealogical. Difficult position for those that may not be in the financial position they aspire to.

I’ve expressly stated the issue isn’t really about U-Haul. The reason U-Haul specifically is being named here is because that’s the company named in the article. If it was Penske, even your top level comment would say Penske and not U-Haul.

If someone used a charitable organization’s logo-emblazoned lanyard to hang a dog from a tree, do you think it to be the fault of the nonprofit? There are no checks or balances to prevent that level of misuse. This has been my entire point that you continue to ignore in a misguided attempt to paint me as a corporate apologist.

It’s understandable that my initial comment may have been misinterpreted, but doubling down on this tunnel-vision viewpoint isn’t.

From what you’ve said, we do in fact share priorities and values. The bottom rungs of the hierarchy earning a pittance compared to the top should be criminal. Where we differ is my refusal to call any group bad because of something wholly out of their control. Nuance and context is important. So far you haven’t attempted to explain how any rental company can stop fascists from using their equipment after it leaves the lot.

I don’t see how you think it’s complicity. Has there been any evidence of U-Haul giving trucks en masse to ICE for the purpose of transporting abducted people?

If you are of the belief that U-Haul is complicit, then you should have no trouble answering the question. How does any rental service prevent their vehicles from being used for anything other than the advertised purpose?

Surely we won’t be putting that responsibility on the minimum wage employee working the front desk.

Precisely my point. I don’t think these trucks are being rented to individuals that use them for malicious purposes, not specifically to ICE for use as impromptu prisoner transport.

That’s a lot of extrapolation. I don’t care about the company, I only asked a logistical question. I was thinking how they could have prevented this from happening. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s possible.

Having rented a moving truck before, I’ve been asked the basic questions of expected mileage or if you’re driving it out of town and whether you want additional insurance. My point was that there is no method to verify what the customer says about their purposes. Rentals get used for purposes other than house moving all the time and there’s not really a way to stop it.

I have no warmth for the largest moving company in North America, which is why I use a local option when possible, but I also won’t attribute malice for what isn’t possible for them to stop.

It’s entirely plausible this same thing is happening with rental trucks of Penske or small local places and it just hasn’t made the news. Despite naming them, my question had nothing to do with U-Haul specifically, so coordinated action isn’t particularly relevant unless you are advocating everyone buy their own moving truck.

I certainly think less of the people that accepted, but honestly if I got the offer to do a spot that paid more than a world tour, I’d be pretty conflicted. Not everyone that went is at the level of Chappelle or Hart.

It’s easy to talk a big game about dismissing the invitation when you didn’t get one, but when that offer knocks on the door it can be really hard to stick to your principles.

How would U-Haul know prior to giving them the truck?

Are we assuming the people not carrying identification while abducting children are being forthright about their purposes when renting the vehicle? Seems unlikely.