3 ms·

"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifical

"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition"

tyingq 9y ago
For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/
- posguy 9y ago
  Violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally. Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing. I wish that weren't the case though, we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
spikels 9y ago
Were the Lyft drivers personally identifiable? Or did they just find the location of anonomized drivers?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Personally identifiable using unique Lyft identifiers.
  - OedipusRex 9y ago
    Which includes what?
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      None of the sources I've read through itemize exactly what that means; they do mention that Uber was able to determine if a Lyft driver also drove for Uber, which means they knew the driver's personal details. Otherwise, if a Lyft driver did not also drive for Uber, I would assume they would not have personal information on the driver. We'll find out regardless through discovery.
      - dx034 9y ago
        If you have overlapping GPS info of Lyft and Uber you know it's the same driver. If not, you could still order a Lyft to get their phone number and make them an offer.

tyingq 9y ago

For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/

posguy 9y ago
Violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally. Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing. I wish that weren't the case though, we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

spikels 9y ago

Were the Lyft drivers personally identifiable? Or did they just find the location of anonomized drivers?

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Personally identifiable using unique Lyft identifiers.
- OedipusRex 9y ago
  Which includes what?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    None of the sources I've read through itemize exactly what that means; they do mention that Uber was able to determine if a Lyft driver also drove for Uber, which means they knew the driver's personal details. Otherwise, if a Lyft driver did not also drive for Uber, I would assume they would not have personal information on the driver. We'll find out regardless through discovery.
    - dx034 9y ago
      If you have overlapping GPS info of Lyft and Uber you know it's the same driver. If not, you could still order a Lyft to get their phone number and make them an offer.