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.
You like God View (Score:2, Funny)
All hair-seekers do
To avoid the shame
Of missing a few
Burma Shave
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
When you can't see
May get you
A glimpse
Of eternity
Burma-Shave
Re: (Score:2)
Jim?
Re: (Score:2)
TOM!
"Uh, Tom... Tom... Actually, from now on, we're the comedy team of Ahjnudpippibod and Davis."
Decentralization (Score:1)
In a few years, this service will be completely decentralized, and people will be paying with decentralized currency.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The decentralized currency that's lost two thirds of its value over the past year or a different one?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There's just no real architecture for bitcoins.
They should have named them bytecoins, then at least they'd be addressable.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say that the trend is up or down on bitcoin?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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]?
Re: (Score:2)
in five years this business will be completely legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe uber can make the taxi unions an offer they can't refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
uber and the taxi unions are both part of the same hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a PR problem because they're run by terrible people.
Legit as in a licensed taxi service ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Private clubs in "dry" counties (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary of Uber's response (Score:2, Funny)
Franken, my dear, we don't give a damn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you must be joking.
Stop calling me Shirley....
Great job, guys (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
See, the thing is, if Uber is just a 'ride-sharing' company why are they setting the pricing?
Shouldn't they just set a base fee, or percentage to the driver and leave the rest of the pricing between him and his rider?
If they did that they would have a much better argument about being just a ride sharing service.
But they don't do that. They set the pricing and adjust the pricing, not the drivers.
This is why I think they are really a taxi company.
Until they let the drivers in their 'ride sharing program' det
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
No privacy regardless (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:No privacy regardless (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
So glad we have Al Franken (Score:2, Interesting)
Theres at least one person on capitol hill who follows (and uses) new tech.
Thanks Al!
Title Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Title Correction (Score:5, Funny)
They've implemented strict controls over 'God View'. Any employee who wants to access it must now know the password; "iddqd"
Re: (Score:2)
LOL yay thats a blast from the past.
The underlying data is still being collected (Score:1)
The underlying data is still being collected and thus it is still a privacy violation.
Can Uber be used without losing privacy? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> 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).
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous phones exist in the UK. You don't have to give any (true) information to get a pay as you go phone.
What authority do senators have? (Score:3)
Can someone explain why a senator has the authority to force Uber to answer these questions?
What penalties can apply if they don't?
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:1)
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
You still can't change user behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Meaningless (Score:3)