3 ms·

The last Lyft I took had two big stickers on the rear passenger-side window warning that by getting into the car, I give consent to being videotaped and audio r

The last Lyft I took had two big stickers on the rear passenger-side window warning that by getting into the car, I give consent to being videotaped and audio recorded. But what are you going to do? Not get in? Then you have to pay a no-show fee, and eventually get banned from the app.

maxerickson 2y ago
That seems like the sort of narrowly scoped, 3 party situation where the surveillance is not particularly problematic.
jansan 2y ago
> But what are you going to do? Not get in? Not call a Lyft the next time.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  You must not be aware that the ride hailing cars are not brand exclusive. One driver will simultaneously run Uber, Lyft, Uber Eats, Postmates, Amazon, and a half dozen other apps all at once in order to stay busy. Switching from Lyft to Uber doesn't change a thing.
chgs 2y ago
Either “vote with your wallet” , which large companies love as it gives them the power (they have a bigger wallet), or vote with your vote and elect representatives which stop this.
- fooqux 2y ago
  > or vote with your vote and elect representatives which stop this. And when all the choices of representative have already been bought and paid for with the lobbying power of that larger wallet? This topic is especially nefarious as it's not just Lyft a representative has to worry about. Every company out there craves data; if not for direct usage, then for resale. Someone campaigning for privacy / data reform would be pissing off nearly every tech company in existence. So even if Lyft isn't lobbying (and we know they are), there's plenty of others that would be upset by stronger laws here. It sure seems to me that we lost the privacy war a long time ago. Most houses have a slew of microphones and cameras owned by very large corporations, that came with legalese in the box stating they can do whatever the hell they want. And people plugged them in. Everyone carries smartphones tracking where the go, most loaded with apps harvesting as much data as Apple/Google lets them get away with, not to mention what Apple/Google are doing themselves. I fear we are getting closer and closer to the time when the population finds out why we had those laws in the first place. There's an inflection point here that scares the hell out of me.
  - chgs 2y ago
    Typically you’d join a party and steer it away. It’s hard because you are fighting such an asymmetric fight. But it’s easier than fighting via economic factors (with your wallet) alone. 100 million people to your cause in the us and you win.
unsupp0rted 2y ago
I prefer that they're video and audio recording. I just wish they'd share it with me after each ride as routine. Auto-recording everything in public places would be safer for everybody. As long as it's also all on the public record.
- Miraltar 2y ago
  Great idea ! Now your stalker can just access public records to know all your daily routine, what an utopia
  - unsupp0rted 2y ago
    Stalkers don't usually suffer from lack of public information about their targets. But catching stalkers would be a lot easier. We'd have a public audit log of everybody who looks up public information. Same as we do now for doctors who look up info on people, say celebs or exes, who aren't their current patients.
- fooqux 2y ago
  I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. In case you're not, how would having everything you say in public being part of the public record be safer for everybody?
  - unsupp0rted 2y ago
    Everything said to me in say taxi cabs, buses, or any places without the expectation of privacy being public would make everybody a lot more ostensibly conscientious. It would not only prevent crimes, it would make tracing criminals, solving crimes, and absolving the innocent much simpler. There'd still be public crimes by idiots, drugs addicts, etc, of course, but the panopticon effect would prevent a huge chunk. The trade-off is we'd have to teach kids from childhood the legal definition of a public place, which differs substantially from the "I'll make it up however I feel like" definition of a public place. And conversely, anything said in private would have to be fiercely defended- far more than it is now. Committing a random public crime should be as obviously a bad idea as climbing up on stage at a 10,000-person concert and committing the same crime in front of everybody.

maxerickson 2y ago

That seems like the sort of narrowly scoped, 3 party situation where the surveillance is not particularly problematic.

jansan 2y ago

> But what are you going to do? Not get in? Not call a Lyft the next time.

reaperducer 2y ago
You must not be aware that the ride hailing cars are not brand exclusive. One driver will simultaneously run Uber, Lyft, Uber Eats, Postmates, Amazon, and a half dozen other apps all at once in order to stay busy. Switching from Lyft to Uber doesn't change a thing.

chgs 2y ago

Either “vote with your wallet” , which large companies love as it gives them the power (they have a bigger wallet), or vote with your vote and elect representatives which stop this.

fooqux 2y ago
> or vote with your vote and elect representatives which stop this. And when all the choices of representative have already been bought and paid for with the lobbying power of that larger wallet? This topic is especially nefarious as it's not just Lyft a representative has to worry about. Every company out there craves data; if not for direct usage, then for resale. Someone campaigning for privacy / data reform would be pissing off nearly every tech company in existence. So even if Lyft isn't lobbying (and we know they are), there's plenty of others that would be upset by stronger laws here. It sure seems to me that we lost the privacy war a long time ago. Most houses have a slew of microphones and cameras owned by very large corporations, that came with legalese in the box stating they can do whatever the hell they want. And people plugged them in. Everyone carries smartphones tracking where the go, most loaded with apps harvesting as much data as Apple/Google lets them get away with, not to mention what Apple/Google are doing themselves. I fear we are getting closer and closer to the time when the population finds out why we had those laws in the first place. There's an inflection point here that scares the hell out of me.
- chgs 2y ago
  Typically you’d join a party and steer it away. It’s hard because you are fighting such an asymmetric fight. But it’s easier than fighting via economic factors (with your wallet) alone. 100 million people to your cause in the us and you win.

unsupp0rted 2y ago

I prefer that they're video and audio recording. I just wish they'd share it with me after each ride as routine. Auto-recording everything in public places would be safer for everybody. As long as it's also all on the public record.

Miraltar 2y ago
Great idea ! Now your stalker can just access public records to know all your daily routine, what an utopia
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  Stalkers don't usually suffer from lack of public information about their targets. But catching stalkers would be a lot easier. We'd have a public audit log of everybody who looks up public information. Same as we do now for doctors who look up info on people, say celebs or exes, who aren't their current patients.
fooqux 2y ago
I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. In case you're not, how would having everything you say in public being part of the public record be safer for everybody?
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  Everything said to me in say taxi cabs, buses, or any places without the expectation of privacy being public would make everybody a lot more ostensibly conscientious. It would not only prevent crimes, it would make tracing criminals, solving crimes, and absolving the innocent much simpler. There'd still be public crimes by idiots, drugs addicts, etc, of course, but the panopticon effect would prevent a huge chunk. The trade-off is we'd have to teach kids from childhood the legal definition of a public place, which differs substantially from the "I'll make it up however I feel like" definition of a public place. And conversely, anything said in private would have to be fiercely defended- far more than it is now. Committing a random public crime should be as obviously a bad idea as climbing up on stage at a 10,000-person concert and committing the same crime in front of everybody.