Uber Limits 'God View' To Improve Rider Privacy

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.

Re:Decentralization

[Ralph Wiggam]

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

So glad we have Al Franken

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Thanks Al!

Legit as in a licensed taxi service ...

[perpenso]

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.

Re:No privacy regardless

[PraiseBob]

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)