3 ms·

This is preposterous. Imagine government requiring any business to delivery real time data on customer behavior, from doctors to restaurants, Walmart to dispen

This is preposterous. Imagine government requiring any business to delivery real time data on customer behavior, from doctors to restaurants, Walmart to dispensaries. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution is about privacy FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION, which is precisely what this is, an intrusive act on the part of government. Why don't they devote their time and effort to actually fixing the crumbling infrastructure here? It's a joke. There are third world countries that have better streets and highways than we have in certain parts of Los Angeles.

scelerat 7y ago
Fourth amendment deals with "unreasonable" search and seizure. It could be argued that municipalities requesting data on usage of infrastructure they must maintain, fund and plan for is not unreasonable.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  By that metric, requiring that all cars report their location live to the municipal government would be OK - after all, that car is using the roads they maintain. For that matter, why limit it to cars? Require that every citizen report their GPS location 24/7 - if you're out of the house you're using their roads or sidewalks, and if you're in the house you're using city water/power/sewer.
  - scelerat 7y ago
    Indeed, I don't entirely disagree.
- robomartin 7y ago
  If you consider yourself to be a free person, almost everything government wants to know about you falls under the category of unreasonable. If people are free, government is entitled to knowing very little about them. Their function isn't to keep tabs on us, to keep a database of every single action we take. That is NOT what they are elected to do. Freedom is a very fragile construct. If we don't hold our government to the bounds they are supposed to occupy what is at risk is, without a doubt, freedom, by a thousand cuts.
x220 7y ago
Corporations and corporate properties are not people and do not have a right to privacy--that's for real people.
- robomartin 7y ago
  Corporations don't ride scooters, at least not in Los Angeles.
angleofrepose 7y ago
From the article: > Companies are required to transmit real-time data on all trips made within the city, including the start point, end point and travel time. From your comment: > real time data on customer behavior If the article is to be trusted (I have no other sources) then this analogy is inaccurate. The city, by this reporting is not asking for customer behavior, its asking for scooter location, and for that matter, not even the route of the ride. It's worth noting that each of your examples are of industries or professions that have large bureaucracies and are heavily regulated. I'm sure pharmacies share data about what's being bought and sold with regulatory agencies, and I don't think any of us would want that to not be the case. Otherwise how and why would you trust any drug to be what the label says it is. How could the CDC identify causes of outbreaks if doctors didn't share health information with them? Of course privacy is a huge issue which is pervasive in all of this, but to consider a regulation of shady rideshare companies preposterous is missing a lot of the reality of government. I'm not for any side in this story, but I am especially uncomfortable with the fierce defense of the rideshare companies in this thread.
- robomartin 7y ago
  I am not sure it is a fierce defense of rideshare companies as much as it is about opposition to government overreach and the proverbial slippery slope. They don't need real time scooter data any more than they need real time car data. I mean, one could make an argument for the utility of a transponder on every vehicle on the highway to use this data to gain an understanding of flow patterns with the aim of improving traffic flow, laws, efficiency, etc. Frankly, having had the pleasure of driving the 405 for several years as part of a 50 mile commute (each way) I could see the potential benefit of having this data so long as it is used in a determined effort to improve traffic flow. Our traffic rules and laws are a mess. The problem is that this kind of thing expands the surveillance state. I am, by no means, a conspiracy theorist, but I have also had "interesting" experiences in other countries where the state and law enforcement are far less constrained than they are here. These rights are precious and must be defended. Yes, sometimes opposition can seem --or even is-- petty. Before we know it we have eroded our freedom by a thousand little petty things that collectively take out big chunks before we are able to realize what we've done.

scelerat 7y ago

Fourth amendment deals with "unreasonable" search and seizure. It could be argued that municipalities requesting data on usage of infrastructure they must maintain, fund and plan for is not unreasonable.

DuskStar 7y ago
By that metric, requiring that all cars report their location live to the municipal government would be OK - after all, that car is using the roads they maintain. For that matter, why limit it to cars? Require that every citizen report their GPS location 24/7 - if you're out of the house you're using their roads or sidewalks, and if you're in the house you're using city water/power/sewer.
- scelerat 7y ago
  Indeed, I don't entirely disagree.
robomartin 7y ago
If you consider yourself to be a free person, almost everything government wants to know about you falls under the category of unreasonable. If people are free, government is entitled to knowing very little about them. Their function isn't to keep tabs on us, to keep a database of every single action we take. That is NOT what they are elected to do. Freedom is a very fragile construct. If we don't hold our government to the bounds they are supposed to occupy what is at risk is, without a doubt, freedom, by a thousand cuts.

x220 7y ago

Corporations and corporate properties are not people and do not have a right to privacy--that's for real people.

robomartin 7y ago
Corporations don't ride scooters, at least not in Los Angeles.

angleofrepose 7y ago

From the article: > Companies are required to transmit real-time data on all trips made within the city, including the start point, end point and travel time. From your comment: > real time data on customer behavior If the article is to be trusted (I have no other sources) then this analogy is inaccurate. The city, by this reporting is not asking for customer behavior, its asking for scooter location, and for that matter, not even the route of the ride. It's worth noting that each of your examples are of industries or professions that have large bureaucracies and are heavily regulated. I'm sure pharmacies share data about what's being bought and sold with regulatory agencies, and I don't think any of us would want that to not be the case. Otherwise how and why would you trust any drug to be what the label says it is. How could the CDC identify causes of outbreaks if doctors didn't share health information with them? Of course privacy is a huge issue which is pervasive in all of this, but to consider a regulation of shady rideshare companies preposterous is missing a lot of the reality of government. I'm not for any side in this story, but I am especially uncomfortable with the fierce defense of the rideshare companies in this thread.

robomartin 7y ago
I am not sure it is a fierce defense of rideshare companies as much as it is about opposition to government overreach and the proverbial slippery slope. They don't need real time scooter data any more than they need real time car data. I mean, one could make an argument for the utility of a transponder on every vehicle on the highway to use this data to gain an understanding of flow patterns with the aim of improving traffic flow, laws, efficiency, etc. Frankly, having had the pleasure of driving the 405 for several years as part of a 50 mile commute (each way) I could see the potential benefit of having this data so long as it is used in a determined effort to improve traffic flow. Our traffic rules and laws are a mess. The problem is that this kind of thing expands the surveillance state. I am, by no means, a conspiracy theorist, but I have also had "interesting" experiences in other countries where the state and law enforcement are far less constrained than they are here. These rights are precious and must be defended. Yes, sometimes opposition can seem --or even is-- petty. Before we know it we have eroded our freedom by a thousand little petty things that collectively take out big chunks before we are able to realize what we've done.