• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Uber bans drivers from broadcasting recordings of riders

Dammit Mazzacane

Well-Known Member
AP: https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Uber-guideline-now-prohibits-broadcasting-13375732.php

The new guideline was put in place at the end of September, an Uber spokesman said Thursday. It allows drivers to use video cameras, dash cameras and other recording devices for security purposes — but not to broadcast them.
"Broadcasting a person's image, audio, or video recording is a violation of these terms and may result in loss of account access," the guideline states

Exactly. Did anyone actually read the policy?
I don't have a dash cam just for reinstatement over a BS Claim. But because no one can send me to jail over it. That's it.

Writing is on the wall though. The end is near. Perhaps they will make us employees hahaha
 

Attachments

Danny3xd

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Just a side thought. The few times I was asked about my cam, it was by shadier looking folks. A few just regular folks but they seem more curious than cautious.

The piece of mind the cams give me make them well worth it IMHO. I wouldn't want to go back to driving folks with out one or having the traffic side, either.
 

SurgeMasterMN

Well-Known Member
Just a side thought. The few times I was asked about my cam, it was by shadier looking folks. A few just regular folks but they seem more curious than cautious.

The piece of mind the cams give me make them well worth it IMHO. I wouldn't want to go back to driving folks with out one or having the traffic side, either.

Understood with the traffic cam. The inside cam still has me reluctant to purchase one. I still think about this quote especially after 911. The surveillance state is in full effect everywhere.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

 

Danny3xd

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Interesting point. (and I thought that was Jefferson?)

I don't think I am giving up or asking that anything be given up. More just ensuring there is a witness. Crime in London went down dramatically after surveillance cameras were installed. I also like RoRo's thought (think it was Ro's) about privacy is at home and in public, you're out in public.

My point, if a cop recognizes a bad actor on the street. Is that any different than a camera with facial recognition? Had the person stayed indoors at home, he could expect not to be recorded. But by definition there can be no expectation of privacy in public. An uber is a public conveyance.

I really do see your point. But do think my welfare and safety comes first in this case.

Saw a scifi movie the other day that I thought made your point really well. A line from it; "It's not that we have anything to hide. We just don't have anything we want you to know"

I thought that great and summed up my misgivings about meta-data and public surveillance.

Some really fine hairs to be considered for sure!
 
Last edited:

Beltsville

Well-Known Member
Travis never had to engage him.
He could have walked off.

Travis only mistake was trying to talk to him man to man.

I have Respect for Travis for doing that.

Anyone else . . .probably would have silently walked off. And Rightfully terminated the driver.

Clients DESERVE a level of privacy !
Including Uber Corporate Clients !
Don't agree. This privacy thing is misunderstood. You don't have a bubble of privacy around you. You don't get to magically determine how others must protect your own words. Mind you mouth or use your own property.
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
I called this: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/uber-bans-drivers-from-broadcasting-recordings-of-riders-months-after/article_febb3b4f-cedd-59ca-813a-8a34ba617275.amp.html
A group of men piled into an Uber SUV late last month. They started complaining about work and their bosses. They had no idea a camera was rolling, and didn't realize their candid conversations would soon be posted online.

This time it happened in Phoenix, and the men recorded without their consent were professional athletes, hockey players for the Ottawa Senators.

A dashcam video of the players badmouthing their coaching staff during the ride quickly spread online this week. And though it happened some 1,400 miles from St. Louis, the story highlights what Uber has changed after a similar story broke in the St. Louis Post-Dispatchthis summer.

In July, the paper reported that Jason Gargac, a driver with ride-hailing apps Uber and Lyft, streamed some 700 of his rides live online without his passengers' consent. Gargac exposed addresses, names and personal conversations about his customers' bosses, spouses and children, all while an online audience watched on the website Twitch and commented in real time. Some viewers focused their comments on female riders and their bodies, and sometimes Gargac joined in.

After Gargac was exposed, an Uber spokesman told the Post-Dispatch that the company would examine its policies, which at the time did not specifically ban the practice. On Wednesday, a spokesman said the company has changed its official guidelines for drivers recording passengers.

An earlier policy stated only that drivers could record rides for safety, but should follow local privacy laws. The new guideline adds: "Broadcasting a person's image, audio or video recording is a violation of (Uber's) terms and may result in loss of account access."

The company also added that drivers are not allowed to use customers' personal data for any reason other than transportation, and that disrespectful or unsafe conduct can result in revocation of their access. The new policy went into effect at the end of September, a spokesman said.

The policy does not prevent drivers from continuing to use cameras for security purposes.

An Uber spokesman said the company did not send alerts to all drivers about the change to the policy, but posted the change to the driver guidelines online.

This week, the controversy over the hockey players' ride put Uber's new rules to the test.

The video, which appears to have been taken by a driver using a dashcam, was posted online on both YouTube and Twitter, according to media reports. The original video has been removed, but it was copied and widely re-posted by social media users and some media outlets.
The footage from Oct. 29 quickly gained attention in sports and Canadian mediafor the players' comments, including center Matt Duchene griping about team meetings.

"We don't change anything, ever," he said. "So why do we even have a meeting? I haven't paid attention in three weeks."

The players released a statement after the video began to spread online, and apologized to their coach.

"Our private conversation was recorded without our knowledge or consent," the statement said.

Uber's public response to the recording stands in contrast to how the company initially handled Gargac's livestreams around St. Louis.

Customers who learned they were being recorded had complained to the company. Some got $5 credits, but Gargac continued to work for Uber. When the Post-Dispatch first contacted Uber with questions about Gargac's actions, the company released a prepared response simply noting the recording appeared to be legal in Missouri.

"Driver partners are responsible for complying with the law when providing trips, including privacy laws,” an Uber spokesman wrote in an initial statement. “Recording passengers without their consent is illegal in some states, but not Missouri.”

The company ignored follow-up questions over the course of that week. It wasn't until the day after the story was published online that the company removed Gargac and condemned his actions as a violation of company policies. Uber did not ban livestreaming or recording of passengers without their consent at that time. Instead, the company cited a part of its policies that prohibits inappropriate or disrespectful behavior by drivers, including comments on appearance or sexual remarks.

The reaction to the video of the hockey players in Arizona stands in contrast. Shortly after the video began to circulate, Rob Khazzam, general manager of Uber Canada, posted a message to Twitter saying that the recording was a clear violation of Uber's policies.

"Filming or recording passengers without their consent is totally unacceptable and if reported / detected we will investigate and take action to preserve our communities privacy and integrity," Khazzam posted. "In this specific case, we made efforts to have the video taken down."

An Uber spokesman confirmed Wednesday that the driver in the Phoenix recording has been removed from Uber.
They should have done this earlier.
 

Danny3xd

Well-Known Member
Moderator
I sincerely wish we would get ourselves and our collective "stuff" together and do that.

I have offered and pleaded. Not one response. Never, nodda zip. But we are all outraged by the same issues. Are great at commiserating. We are even supportive. We loudly voice our thoughts to each other. Some even actually tell the powers that be.

But never as one collective or with any actual sway.

Light a candle or curse the dark?
 

DocT

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Riders should abide by the same "cam" rules as drivers in 2-party consent states.
 

dirtylee

Well-Known Member
Travis never had to engage him.
He could have walked off.

Travis only mistake was trying to talk to him man to man.

I have Respect for Travis for doing that.

Anyone else . . .probably would have silently walked off. And Rightfully terminated the driver.

Clients DESERVE a level of privacy !
Including Uber Corporate Clients !
That's video was back when drivers made more money. It has gotten much much worse for drivers today earnings wise.

That dude was @@@@@ing about uberX undercutting his uber black business into the ground.
 

Similar threads


Top