5 ms·

I am a user of Lyft and (very rarely) Uber. As a passenger in these services, I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could record

by abhv 10y ago

I am a user of Lyft and (very rarely) Uber. As a passenger in these services, I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could record me. I've certainly had conversations on the phone that I would expect to be private. Travis may have had the same expectation. On the other hand, a CEO of a billion dollar company should have been coached about how to politely react to criticism.

frabbit 10y ago
I would have expected some privacy also. If there is no policy on this in Uber then this may be a greater blow to the their brand than anything else in this affair. Personally I do not see what Kalanick did wrong here. He did not seek personal interaction with the driver. He was not abusive and IMO responded at the same level at which the driver engaged him. That is all separate from my opinions about the (from my perspective) problem with replacing a publicly funded transport service with a for-profit effective monopoly. There should be city-wide public transport running 24/7 driven by trained, unionized workers. Not a race-to-the-bottom, gig-economy semi-monopoly.
tessierashpool 10y ago
> a CEO of a billion dollar company should have been coached about how to politely react to criticism. yeah, he should have been coached on it by his parents when he was five years old.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Relying on upbringing as a CEO for public image purposes is very naive. He should have been professionally coached on how to react in certain situations, regardless of what his parents taught him.
bb611 10y ago
> As a passenger in these services, I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could record me. I've certainly had conversations on the phone that I would expect to be private. My understanding is that California law likely protects Travis in this situation because it was just him and the driver and he could thus expect privacy. However, it's unlikely that you can prevent someone from publishing your private conversation in a Lyft or Uber, and given that most of these drivers are not high earners you're not likely to get a major payout from them, so while you might legally have the protections of privacy it still probably means very little in practice.
smileysteve 10y ago
> I had an expectation of privacy You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one. In this case, the recording device was in clear view. More broadly, the vehicle is owned by a party that has a vested interest in protecting its value. The driver also has prerogative to be able to record incidents / interactions with users so that he can report damage / throwing up. The driver also has prerogative to protect himself from legal liabilities in instances of rape, kidnap, theft, or violence.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one" This varies by jurisdiction. "968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited." ... "whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31
  - smileysteve 10y ago
    See "Intentionally" A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above. The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued no expectation of privacy and no intentionality in the recording.
    - ahartman00 10y ago
      "See "Intentionally"" Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right statute, lol. "The court case would be interesting" Yes indeed. Edit: Here is some more relevant info, if you are in Wisconsin and want to know more; https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-recording-is-allowed/ http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-...

by abhv 10y ago

frabbit 10y ago

I would have expected some privacy also. If there is no policy on this in Uber then this may be a greater blow to the their brand than anything else in this affair. Personally I do not see what Kalanick did wrong here. He did not seek personal interaction with the driver. He was not abusive and IMO responded at the same level at which the driver engaged him. That is all separate from my opinions about the (from my perspective) problem with replacing a publicly funded transport service with a for-profit effective monopoly. There should be city-wide public transport running 24/7 driven by trained, unionized workers. Not a race-to-the-bottom, gig-economy semi-monopoly.

tessierashpool 10y ago

> a CEO of a billion dollar company should have been coached about how to politely react to criticism. yeah, he should have been coached on it by his parents when he was five years old.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Relying on upbringing as a CEO for public image purposes is very naive. He should have been professionally coached on how to react in certain situations, regardless of what his parents taught him.

bb611 10y ago

> As a passenger in these services, I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could record me. I've certainly had conversations on the phone that I would expect to be private. My understanding is that California law likely protects Travis in this situation because it was just him and the driver and he could thus expect privacy. However, it's unlikely that you can prevent someone from publishing your private conversation in a Lyft or Uber, and given that most of these drivers are not high earners you're not likely to get a major payout from them, so while you might legally have the protections of privacy it still probably means very little in practice.

smileysteve 10y ago

> I had an expectation of privacy You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one. In this case, the recording device was in clear view. More broadly, the vehicle is owned by a party that has a vested interest in protecting its value. The driver also has prerogative to be able to record incidents / interactions with users so that he can report damage / throwing up. The driver also has prerogative to protect himself from legal liabilities in instances of rape, kidnap, theft, or violence.

ahartman00 10y ago
"You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one" This varies by jurisdiction. "968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited." ... "whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31
- smileysteve 10y ago
  See "Intentionally" A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above. The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued no expectation of privacy and no intentionality in the recording.
  - ahartman00 10y ago
    "See "Intentionally"" Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right statute, lol. "The court case would be interesting" Yes indeed. Edit: Here is some more relevant info, if you are in Wisconsin and want to know more; https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-recording-is-allowed/ http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-...