Coming soon -- algorithmic manipulation to the passenger volume offered to drivers whose audio indicates that they're driving for competing services, and passenger advertising profiles, based on their topic of conversations, offered for sale to any interested buyers.
Why would they sell this data? Just use it to serve ads in the app. If you sell someone the data, they have it forever. If you dole it out in cost per impression, they keep coming back for more.
Because it's likely more valuable to sell data to multiple buyers than it is to try to deliver ads inside an app which may only be used occasionally for short periods of use. It also allows them to distance themselves from the creepy-factor.
I actually support this, despite being a strong advocate for privacy.
Statistically, assault by Uber drivers is really rare, but enough people take enough rides that I know multiple people who have had these experiences. Uber needs to have super-strict privacy controls and auditing on this, but it'll make a lot of people, especially women, feel more comfortable with taking Ubers.
Personally, I think it's a good idea and I wonder why they didn't do it long ago.
As for privacy, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. An Uber car isn't any more private in theory than a train or subway. If you want privacy, stay at home or get your own car. Uber already knows where you're going if you use their service, so this only gives them access to any conversations you might have. Simple: keep your mouth shut in the car. Why would you have a super-private conversation in a cab anyway, with some stranger who's driving you right there?
I'm not sure why you think you should deserve any privacy in a conversation when you have that conversation right next to some stranger. If you want something to be private, you don't do it in public. This should be self-evident, hence why the terms "public" and "private" usually function as antonyms.
Or instead of this, actually put an effective vetting system in place for drivers. That would not require super-strict privacy control and the inevitable hack. (having this data would make uber the most juicy target for spy agencies)
There is no vetting system that can separate criminals from "normal people", beyond looking at obvious stuff like past convictions. Sex offenders don't look or act any different than the rest of us.
Given Uber's history, this feature is almost certainly not "for the good of the consumer". Audio data has a lot of value these days, and I imagine Uber has a lot to gain from having a large trove of it.
Why would this data be so valuable? In an Uber people are with a stranger in their car so they will probably not have super confidential conversations.
And for every cab, that recording stays offline in the vehicle (protected compartment) unless circumstances say otherwise. It also doesn't have infinite storage.
Both are different in this case, so the comparison is moot.
> When the trip ends, the user will be asked if everything is okay and be able to report a safety incident and submit the audio recording to Uber with a few taps
This sounds pretty similar to what's happening in the cabs. The recording stays offline in your phone unless someone feels that it's the sort of thing that should be uploaded to Uber.
I'd disagree. I suspect the system would have the ability to simply upload when back at the cab facility, or a removable harddrive to transfer files to a computer. So, yes, it's harder for a cab company to keep all that data, but it's still possible.
I am honestly surprised they weren’t already, I don’t really understand the opposition to this. I would love there to be a record of my rides such that if it comes to it, it’s not the drivers word vs mine. Honestly, start recording the video.
You honestly don't understand the difference between somebody listening to your conversation and that conversation is being recorded, stored, analysed, added to your profile, sold to 3rd parties, stolen by hackers and given to law enforcment agencies?
I don't care if I discuss say, my retirement plans or my intended stock trades with a cab driver listening in. I do care if a recording of those things is sent to a multi-national company who is motivated by profit.
It's the same case that I don't care if my neighbor's security cam records me leaving my house, but I care quite a bit if a distributed security system owned by the state does.
>I don't care if I discuss say, my retirement plans or my intended stock trades with a cab driver listening in. I do care if a recording of those things is sent to a multi-national company who is motivated by profit.
That's weird, I'm exactly the opposite. The last thing I want to do is give any private financial information to some strange guy who drives a car for a living, which he or one of his contacts might use to rob me. I'm not too worried about a huge multinational company doing that; they'll just try to sell me something at worst.
That multinational company is probably going to put your data in an unsecured s3 bucket or a company-accessible excel spreadsheet. So instead of "some strange guy" it's going to be an entire network of people who could use that to rob you directly, plus anyone who works at any of the companies they sell it to, plus people who buy it directly with the intent of spear fishing or ripping you off (legally or illegally).
Aren't they already doing this?
An Uber driver explained to me a situation where he drove a drug dealer (didn't know it at the time) who refused to pay him and ran away. After contacting Uber support they said to him that they reviewed the audio recording of their conversations in the car and established that the driver was telling the truth and paid him part of the fare.
How can you "refuse to pay" with uber? You have to have a card on file to order a ride. Not having a payment interaction with the driver is half the appeal.
It's private between the occupants of the vehicle. The scenario I had in mind was an idle chat with the driver, perhaps about politics, perhaps about unionization at Uber. What you say has not (so far) been shared with a multinational corporation.
'Private' isn't a binary - there's a huge difference between being overheard by a stranger or acquaintance, being seen walking down the street through the window by someone's grandma, and placing microphones and surveillance cameras around public places, gathering the data at some central location, to be used for ads, building a commercial or political profile of you, and subject to police seizure, or bought by private security that's investigating troublemakers at some company, or just running a background check on you before offering you a job.
