St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
stltoday.com
stltoday.com
Gargac says he’s earned about $3,500 off Twitch users so far, including subscriptions, donations and tips called “bits.” That’s on top of about $150 to $300 he earns from fares on an average night. He typically drives on weekend nights because, he says, the bar crowd makes for the most entertaining rides.
So, the Gig Economy, where so many workers are underpaid and have no benefits, etc, mated with the Internet version of Reality TV and this is their bastard child.
I find it disturbing, but I think the conversation here should really be about "What can the average person realistically do who doesn't want to be a wage slave anymore?" I mean, if we want people to not whore out their passengers' lives in a grotesque modern version of Candid Camera for cash, maybe we should, like, create jobs with adequate pay and benefits.
Bizarre concept, I know, that treating all your citizens like they deserve a living wage, medical care and basic, decent housing might promote ethical behavior. But I'm putting it out there anyway.
If you make it hard enough to make good choices that you approve of, don't be shocked when some people's moral fiber fails the test and they get on with meeting survival needs instead of ethically and high-mindedly starving.
On the surface, it seems likely that the driver is simply an unethical person who is abusing his customers' trust for money and/or fame.
I agree with you though that it might not be for making money, but just because the driver is a morally bad individual.
A much more likely scenario than him being a bad actor is that he might've thought he had found a hole in the market that would bring him 15 minutes of fame, and that's where his rational and moral thoughts went out the window.
My dad was a veteran with shrapnel in one eye that made him unable to purchase additional life insurance and it caused blind spells that left him intermittently unemployed for months at a time. I've had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I know something about both veterans and homelessness. (For those not bothering to click on the link above, veterans are over-represented amongst the homeless.)
Veterans tend to be proud people. They may not tell you how maimed their military career left them and it may not be obvious why they can't get a better job. I also don't see where the article made any effort whatsoever to understand why he has chosen to do such a thing.
So perhaps you don't see how my remark applies to the current story because the current story would like to vilify him while glossing over the context in which this is occurring.
See also the Conjunction fallacy / Linda Problem: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-superhuman-mind/...
Uber is in the business of pushing exploitation as far as possible. And they are not the only company doing this in the self-destructive frenzy of late stage capitalism.
The official narrative is that everyone has a choice, while removing as much choice as possible for most.
What? That's Hacker News' favorite thing to do.
>by getting into your cab on the gig economy
OH. Right. Yeah. They're doing it face to face, not from behind apps and contracts of adhesion. Very different. Carry on.
> treating all your citizens
non citizen population need benefits too.
That $3.5k in extra income is over the course of about 3.5 months or so. Call it an extra $1000/month. A quick google tells me that health insurance costs average around $321 or $558 per month for an individual and $833 per month for a family, plus there is a multi-thousand dollar annual deductible. [2] Sounds to me like, yes, universal basic health coverage absolutely could help someone resist the temptation for that amount of money.
Edit: I will note the article indicates he is 32, so while he's a veteran, he's not a military retiree. He likely doesn't have military medical benefits.
non citizen population need benefits too.
I don't disagree with you.[2] I'm just shooting for the low hanging fruit first that hopefully more people will readily agree on.
[1] https://gusto.com/framework/health-benefits/how-much-is-heal...
[2] https://twitter.com/doreen_michele/status/102075093793191116...
...if you give someone any amount of money, it will help resist the temptation for more money, unless they're already not interested in money in the first place.
So, yes, universal health care would do the trick, as would a flat reimbursement, or lower prices on goods/services (effectively more money), as would any other manner of lessening the amount of money they need.
Your thesis basically is that this could never happen in Canada or happens less frequently in canada. It could be true.
But there seem to be lots of these in canada too
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/uber-scam-driver-polic...
I'm not saying such people don't exist. I'm just saying that when the system actively makes it hard enough to survive while doing things the world would approve of, don't be all shocked when some folks stop caring about the world's approval and start caring more about their bottom line.
Creepy as fuck to be honest
Is it less creepy if it's just some guy watching old surveillance videos if he works for a security company? Or the NSA? Because... well, look, if you find this creepy you'll just make yourself sad reading about what our government does.
“Creepy” is not a good argument. What’s offensive to you is normal to me, what’s creepy to me is normal to you.
Is it a policy violation of Uber/Lyft? That doesn't seem like the case because there are other drivers that livestream uber rides.
Is it a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy when you're in someone else's vehicle? Because that's not necessarily a given, since you're in someone else's vehicle.
Is it because it's being live streamed and recorded on a site like twitch? Because it seems to me that if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to.
What am I missing?
> a violation of reasonable expectation to privacy
Probably. The customers expected that they just take a ride and are not being filmed. They don't expect that their face will be published on the Internet so that anyone can find their social network page and learn who they are.
> if someone can legally record video, it's their copyright, and they can distribute it however they want to.
It should not be this way. Wikipedia says that in some countries there are laws against this [1]. Of course, some laws could be written before Internet become popular so they need adaptation.
This article [2] also mentions that surveillance can be regulated by laws.
Finally, there are personality rights [3] although they are related to commercial activity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography
I think there's a wide gulf between what people estimate their rights to be and their actual rights granted to them by law.
I understand your sentiment with not having your image spread throughout the internet without your permission, but asking for that right would break journalism.
I'd be up for a fix so long as it doesn't create criminals of both professional photographers and tourists livestreaming on times square, say.
That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, audio recording without consent is not legal, but Missouri appears to be one-party-consent.
Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
There's a reason things like model releases for photography and film exist: Having the copyright for something does not mean you have full freedom to use it. Again, in the US these rights tend to be limited, but even there they exist. E.g. while you can freely photograph in public (which is not the case everywhere in the world), you can't use people's image for advertising without permission, you can't freely use photos of artwork in public places or of some buildings, ..., all despite having the copyright on your images.
In fact it's hard to see how his behavior is illegal, given today's laws.
It might be creepy, but a lot of creepy things are not illegal.
Then (grandparent poster should) select better adjectives when making a point.
(Ironically, the site is geoblocked for the EU.)
After that it'd be fine of about a few thousand pounds. Here's the ICO page for enforcement action: https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/
Here's a CCTV case (without further publishing): https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/noble-desig...
Uber partners do not have to accept every request. In fact, I don’t accept any passenger with a low score. As it turns out, there’s no shortage of passengers in San Francisco. Be nice to your driver!
Most passengers appear to be completely unaware that it is a “privilege” for a passenger to ride in my car, (not a “right”)
Resultingly, a very small group of terrible passengers feel that their abusive behavior towards others or my property is justified.
With informed consent, I do indeed record all activity in and out of the car.
If it starts to get abusive I will simply end the ride when and where it is safe to do so.
When one enters my car, they’re inside my privately owned vehicle. If they don’t like being recorded - They can probably easily find a ride with a different driver.
Of course, everybody I drive seems to be OK with this arrangement, as my driver score is 4.99 stars.
This is what I have written / posted: ——————————
First, welcome to my car!
If you’re reasonable, decent, empathetic human who understands how painful it is for me to have to write the following informed consent disclaimer, thanks.
You are appreciated, friend.
• This car is equipped with video capture and broadcast devices.
• This equipment protects you (the passenger), Joshua (the driver), and the vehicle from a "He Said - She Said" scenario in the event of accident or an incident.
• In California, video recording does not require two party consent; only “informed consent” I.e me informing you - which this just did.
• There is no audio recording - that would require your consent.
• In addition, an abbreviated notice of active filming has been posted on all exterior passenger windows.
• If at any time you feel uncomfortable with video being captured, please inform me as soon as possible. We will work together to find a agreeable safe place to promptly end this trip. You will only be charged for the partial trip. Note that video capture and recording will continue in the event of a rapid escalation of hostilities.
Thanks for understanding!
CA Government doesn’t require me to cover every use case for the recording law as it applies to every camera recording the public.
Then around 7 pm they suspended the drivers access to the app pending investigation. They just affirmed what he's doing is not illegal. So is the investigation time being used so their lawyers can find a valid excuse to terminate him?
For comparison. on Japanese TV when they take an interview in the street, they hide the faces of unrelated people passing by. That's the example of sane legislation.
He tends to blur out faces, except for extraordinary circumstances.
Mind you I often, when going to people's houses ask them to turn off their Alexa or whatever and they're pretty happy to.
Hidden trigger phrases or targeted spying are a real hard to discover possibility.
I’m not weighing in on what it should be - not being a lawyer I’m curious what the law or precedent dictates.
If you live in most of America, and want to get somewhere, and the public transit sucks, Lyft gets you there. Taxis just don't.
People who get snarky about Uber/Facebook/etc. users don't seem to realize that these things have very real utility for millions of people. We don't just use them because we're too stupid to know better. If you want to address their (very real, glaring) problems, you'll need to offer an equally-useful alternative, not just smug moralizing.
- call by tapping a few times (vs finding dispatch phone number in every city)
- reliable ETA always on screen (vs calling dispatch for unreliable estimate)
- cheaper and always shows the price before I get in (vs more expensive and no estimate)
- never taken on scenic route and usually dropped off directly at destination (vs often driver optimizes by taking scenic route or dropping off short of destination)
This is just journalism paired with a new and novel social and technological configuration. Nothing more.
Meanwhile, actual eavesdropping-style surveillance is ongoing via state institutions. Are we perhaps bothered by our conscience a bit here?
Is there a name for the fallacy that says "anything not actually illegal must therefore be morally correct"?
For example, in England you're allowed to use CCTV but you need to register with ICO and you can only use that video for law enforcement purposes - eg if someone vomits in your car you could use the video when you sue that person.
Well, too bad. The photons that bounce off your skin don't belong to you in perpetuity. You don't get to tell the rest of us how to use our eyes (including electronic eyes).
Do you instruct everyone you converse with to forget what you've said unless they have your permission to remember?
Most people believe that not all information is newsworthy. That includes most journalists, who try to balance people's rights to live their lives unmolested with the public interest. If what Jason Gargac is doing is journalism, so is "revenge porn".
Gargac also lied about his recording and hypocritically asked the Post-Dispatch to withhold his name "because privacy concerns".
What point are you trying to make about warrantless spying? The legal rationalization relies on a reductionist view of privacy similar to yours.
For shame! And unlike the proud, honest veterans who actually care for Americans!
Edit: any lawyers here? Can this become a federal wiretapping case, as twitch streams across state lines? Like gambling online relies on meaningless semantics of being within a state that allows for such?
This is pretty American if you ask me
Wherever Americans specifically call out their gratitude for veteran's service, they're not thanking them for their allegiance to government institutions that may or may not be on their side. They specifically perceive veterans to be selflessly protecting 'the people'
It's supposed to be to The People through the agency of the Constitution and not pledging allegiance to whomever cuts your paycheck.
About 11% of the adult homeless population are veterans.
Perhaps if we want veterans to act honorably, we should treat them respectfully. Veterans are often kind of thrown away by the country after it has maimed them for its benefit.
[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
As you point out, it seems like the interstate commerce hook would be established by his use of the phone network and/or internet.