Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Transportation

Uber Limits 'God View' To Improve Rider Privacy 76

mpicpp sends this report from CNN: Uber has rolled back employee access to its "God view" mode, which allows the company to track riders' locations and other data. The ride service company was faced with questions about its privacy policies from U.S. Senator Al Franken, following a series of recent privacy debacles. Uber's updated policy is detailed in its response to the senator's questions. Franken sent Uber a letter (PDF, Uber's response) in November after news reports made two things clear: The ride service company collects lots of data on customers — and some executives don't exercise that power responsibly. In one case, an Uber employee using "God View" easily tracked a reporter's movements on her way to a meeting.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Limits 'God View' To Improve Rider Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • You like God View
    All hair-seekers do
    To avoid the shame
    Of missing a few
    Burma Shave
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by ZipK ( 1051658 )
      Passing cars
      When you can't see
      May get you
      A glimpse
      Of eternity
      Burma-Shave
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In a few years, this service will be completely decentralized, and people will be paying with decentralized currency.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 )

      The decentralized currency that's lost two thirds of its value over the past year or a different one?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There's just no real architecture for bitcoins.

        They should have named them bytecoins, then at least they'd be addressable.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        1.
        Dec 16 2013: $712.51
        Dec 16 2014: $351.91
        That's half.

        2.
        2013: 14.46ÂC
        2014: 14.37ÂC
        We must be in for an ice age.

        3.
        Oct 1 2013: $125.18
        Oct 1 2014: $381.33
        That's more than triple.

        Maybe you should go back to standing in line at the grocery store, instead of trying to pick cherries.

      • The decentralized currency that's lost two thirds of its value over the past year or a different one?

        You mean the Russian ruble [yahoo.com]?

    • in five years this business will be completely legitimate.

      • Or completely gone, and people will realize they've been bilked.

        I believe they are going to realize that legally they aren't what they've been claiming they are, and that valuing them at however many billions of dollars is idiotic.

        Between the extortionate prices they gouged Australians for to escape the shooting, and crap like this ... it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of assholes.

        From what I've seen over the last few months, I wouldn't trust these clowns, and wouldn't do business with them.

        They're an ov

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          liability is an issue.

          Do you want your kid killed by a ride share driver and then to be told that the insurance is not covering it and you are on your own?

          When taxis insurance will cover the same thing?

        • Maybe uber can make the taxi unions an offer they can't refuse.

          • by rvw ( 755107 )

            Maybe uber can make the taxi unions an offer they can't refuse.

            The offer: free rides for your familie and we tell you what they do!

        • by N1AK ( 864906 )

          Between the extortionate prices they gouged Australians for to escape the shooting, and crap like this ..

          Oh come on. They have an algorithm that detects high demand and increases prices. It's not like someone was sitting there watching the news and salivating at the idea of ripping off terrified Aussies. If that surge pricing actually got more drivers into the city, and more people out, then it achieved exactly what was intended.

          I agree with just about every other criticism so there's no need to try and

          • Re:Decentralization (Score:5, Informative)

            by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @05:01PM (#48612505) Homepage

            That was my first reaction. But the official Uber twitter account sent this-

            "We are all concerned with events in CBD. Fares have increased to encourage more drivers to come online and pick up passengers in the area."

            Then an hour later, after getting hammered on twitter, they decided to make all rides free. Uber pretty much has the worst PR department I have ever seen.

            • Agreed on the horrible PR. I can see why they would post this in hopes to let people understand why and how increasing the price will get more drivers in the area but its just in bad taste IMO.

            • by Pope ( 17780 )

              They have a PR problem because they're run by terrible people.

      • by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @02:17PM (#48611057)

        in five years this business will be completely legitimate.

        Legit as in a licensed taxi service paying a local government for a medallion. Scheduling a ride with an app rather than a phone is an improvement on an existing business, its not a new type of business.

        "Ride sharing" will probably be defined as something like what the FAA does with private pilots. If the car was going to go somewhere already and a person is just tagging along and chipping in for actual expenses, no inflated expenses or tips, then its ride sharing. However if money beyond actual expense changes hands or if the passenger influences where the car goes then its a commercial activity. Note this would only apply to those scheduling rides through a service, not friends and family directly communicating through normal channels.

        • Have you ever had to sign up to a "private club" in a county that doesn't sell liquor?

          Uber can be a new private club of "friends with travel benefits".

          • Have you ever had to sign up to a "private club" in a county that doesn't sell liquor? Uber can be a new private club of "friends with travel benefits".

            And those private clubs are probably defined and recognized as an exception in the same county laws that make the county dry. A club can not simply declare itself to be immune from local laws and regulations. A ride sharing club would probably have to be defined by law and explicitly made exempt from commercial taxi regulations.

          • by Meski ( 774546 )
            ... Will there be a bar in the back of Uber cabs? Not sure I'd trust it not to be roofied.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Franken, my dear, we don't give a damn

  • Great job, guys (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @01:53PM (#48610829)

    It's great to know that a company that has threatened reporters, acted flippant about sexual assault, and charged excessive fees to people trying to leave the scene of a hostake crisis after public transit was shut down, had to be cajoled into maybe not letting every weenie stalk its users. No, stalking is just for the upper management that's been shown to be aggressive, condescending, and seemingly have something of a god-complex.

    If you have to use a ridesharing app, please, at least use anything other than Uber.

    • Re:Great job, guys (Score:4, Insightful)

      by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @02:41PM (#48611201)

      charged excessive fees to people trying to leave the scene of a hostake crisis after public transit was shut down

      Okay, the government decides to shut down the government subsidized/run public transit (i.e., reneges on their implied commitment to their customers) and you blame a company that tries to provide at least some people a substitute service? How do you suppose Uber might increase supply of drivers to meet demand? Hmm..., maybe they could offer drivers more money to show up and offer rides? How might they fund that effort? Hmm..., how about by charging the consumer more?

      This is a case, fairly rare actually, where supply can actually be increased to some degree almost instantaneously - but there has to be a motivation to the supplier to do so. If an Uber driver is at home gardening because they decided that the pay for rides wasn't high enough to motivate her to offer rides instead of garden at that moment, the most efficient means to get her to change her mind and thereby increase demand is to offer her more money. This is no different than how employers staff their positions -- if they have a need that they can't fill, they increase the pay until a qualified person is motivated to take the position.

      From what little I know, Uber does seem like a pretty crappy company but I don't see how them utilizing well understood market forces to match supply and demand is a bad thing.

      • This is no different than how employers staff their positions -- if they have a need that they can't fill, they increase the pay until a qualified person is motivated to take the position.

        That is so last century. Now they just claim a labor shortage and bring in more cheap foreign labor.

      • Nope. Everybody keeps saying 'Surge Pricing TM" brings more supply on line by charging higher fares. That might be the idea, but what *actually* happens, is that the higher fares REDUCE DEMAND, because those who can't afford or aren't willing to pay 2 - 8 x the fare simply no longer need a cab. WHAT A TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION!
  • by al0ha ( 1262684 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @01:55PM (#48610861) Journal
    The public at large would be a lot better off if they could get one simple rule through their thick numbskulls

    You should have no expectation of privacy using any App, nor the Internet in general. Period. This is a beautiful rule as there are indeed a very few exceptions offered which prove the rule.
    • by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @02:18PM (#48611069)
      Letters have traveled through various postal systems for hundreds of years now. By giving your letter to a postal carrier, you are relinquishing control of it and letting it be processed by a centralized system. Therefore, anyone who sends a private correspondance through a postal system, should have no expectation of privacy. ?

      Are network packets really that different? Because technology makes it easier to look at the content of the packet without breaking any wax seals, or having to steam the glue, that makes it ok to look? The 4th amendment protects paper packets, why not electronic packets? The US was founded with personal privacy enshrined as a core principal, so a lot of thick numbskulls like myself carry that expectation across different spectrums.

      (Note: In this particular case, I'm not surprised that Uber employees can access Uber data, especially in this example where the reporter called out being late to a meeting with Uber executives while seated in an Uber car)
      • Therefore, anyone who sends a private correspondance through a postal system, should have no expectation of privacy. ?

        No, you shouldn't. If you do, you're pretty stupid.

        The ONLY reason your mail is 'private' in any given postal system is because people don't care about your messages. The cost of looking for something tasty in your message is too high to be worth it.

        In an electronic system, with no encryption, the cost is nearly 0, meaning its cost effective to do it to everyone and every bit of data transmitted.

        You do not mail 'secrets' around, anyone with a clue knows that. You have your own courier for that if its act

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Theres at least one person on capitol hill who follows (and uses) new tech.

    Thanks Al!

  • Title Correction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @01:58PM (#48610895)

    The title of the article, (and therefore the summary), should have said "Uber Claims To Have Limited 'God View' To Improve Rider Privacy". After all, does anybody other than gullible people and fanbois really take them at their word?

  • The underlying data is still being collected and thus it is still a privacy violation.

  • Could one buy a second-hand smartphone, only turning it on to use Uber, and pay with a prepaid anonymous credit card?

    (The problem of having to use their non-free application would of course still exist.)

    I've never used it and don't have a smartphone, so forgive my ignorance.

    • by gnupun ( 752725 )
      We badly need anonymous phones? Do they really exist? If we can't get them, it's guaranteed the govt will have a complete database of every place you visit.
      • > We badly need anonymous phones?

        Phones and SIM cards can be bought and used anonymously in my country.

        If you leave your phone on all the time, someone could look at where you spend your days and where you spend your nights and they'd have a very good starting point for identifying you. But, that takes effort, so it's not (yet) being done on a mass scale.

        But my question was about using a dummy phone that you leave off and only turn it on when using Uber (or similar).

      • by Smauler ( 915644 )

        Anonymous phones exist in the UK. You don't have to give any (true) information to get a pay as you go phone.

  • by metrix007 ( 200091 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @02:31PM (#48611135)

    Can someone explain why a senator has the authority to force Uber to answer these questions?

    What penalties can apply if they don't?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      He's just "respectfully requesting" the answers. Those are his words.

      However, the correct reading of those words is more like "If you don't want your entire business to be illegal in a year, I suggest you explain to me and my colleagues why we shouldn't make that happen, because even members of the other party will get a lot more sympathetic to that idea if they find out you've been dissing the position they and I both hold. By the way, if I call the executive branch and ask them politely to look really har

      • He's just "respectfully requesting" the answers. Those are his words.

        However, the correct reading of those words is more like "If you don't want your entire business to be illegal in a year, I suggest you explain to me and my colleagues why we shouldn't make that happen, because even members of the other party will get a lot more sympathetic to that idea if they find out you've been dissing the position they and I both hold. By the way, if I call the executive branch and ask them politely to look really hard at any existing laws you may be breaking, they will take my call a lot faster than they'll take yours.".

        Gee, sure would be nice if our elected representatives went after the NSA like this when it comes to protecting user privacy...

        I mean we're only talking about illegalities on a Constitutional level, being performed by a government agency and paid for by US Citizens. What could possibly go wrong...

    • by Anonymous Coward
      You don't have to answer a question asked by a Senator. You don't have to answer questions asked by the President.

      But they are people that are in a position where they could make you life miserable and hurt your business if you choose not to and they get upset by that. The Senator can try and drag you into congress to testify, in which case you will have to answer questions. A Senator can take the bully pulpit and drag your name in the dirt. They can claim that you're hiding something. They can rile
  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @02:36PM (#48611165)

    One of the things that is fueling the insane hype behind the Web 2.0/mobile/social/app/whatever bubble is the fact that any group of startup kids can use tools to build an app. Just like any group of startup kids could build a website capable of processing payments in 1997, add in a shaky business model and all of a sudden, "this time it's different." Apple, Google and other smartphone OS vendors have rolled out some really cool stuff and basically given everyone a tracking device with all sorts of sensors attached to a full-powered computer the size of a phone. The problem is this -- the nature of the user interface hides the fact from ordinary users that all of their location and other data is being shared with the app developers. Android does a little better with privacy controls, but basically all this stuff is hidden from the user.

    Ordinary users, i.e. non-techies, see the shiny app interface and (understandably so) don't see that the "free" services the app provides are paid for either through marketing/advertising (eyeballs in dotcom bubble 1.0 speak) or selling your data to a third party. And even if they knew about it, most people would want the benefit of hailing a cab on demand more than their privacy. It would take some serious user education, and a few very high-profile leaks of customer data to change behavior, and I don't think it would even be possible if that happened. People like their free apps. I would pay Google for a subscription to their search engine if I could be assured my information wasn't being harvested, but I know no one else would want this.

    On the positive side, sitting on the sidelines and watching from my comfy seat, it looks like Bubble 2.0 is starting to reach the top. We're already seeing the insane valuations and VC investments, have had a couple high-profile revenue-free IPOs like Twitter, and the next phase is coming. Soon as interest rates start going up and the stock and VC bubble money stops flowing, things will calm down again. When you start hearing startup-speak more and more in the financial press, it's time to sell and wait for things to collapse again. It really is the dotcom bubble all over again, but this time people are carrying their web browsers in their pockets and companies have direct access to their location and habits.

  • Ah, all better! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @03:17PM (#48611509) Journal
    So, in a predictable (honestly, surprising they made it to this market cap without doing it already) part of the maturation process; Uber is claiming that they'll rein in discretionary access to personal information by their frat-bro-asshole management, and instead put full database access to all the data ever in the hands of their advertising and customer analytics weasels.

    That's the unpleasant flip side to a story like this. Yes, as it happens, Uber has some of the most punchable management shitweasels one could ask for. The very idea of one of them using 'god view' on you makes you want to take a hot shower and scrub yourself until the uncleanness is gone. However, while opportunistic assholerly is repulsive, it is also unsystematic. Once they grow up a bit, and put those data into the hands of solid, value-rational, systematic, people who aim to squeeze every drop of value out of it, then you are really screwed.
    • by jschrod ( 172610 )
      Whoever rated this funny, should check in for a mental hospital.

      This is the most insightful remark on /. that I've read in the last year. It's a concise statement what's wrong with the view of many people on our current state of affairs. Well done, hats off.

  • by deadweight ( 681827 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @03:18PM (#48611517)
    My though is - who cares? SOMEONE still has access to it and they can turn it back on for everyone any time they want to.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...