Uber plans to start audio-recording rides in the U.S. for safety | Hacker News Reader

Uber plans to start audio-recording rides in the U.S. for safety

washingtonpost.com

36 pointselorant50 comments

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.

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.

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?

> Simple: keep your mouth shut

Truly the best solution to privacy erosion.

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.

There's an interesting law review article that covers expectations of privacy in uber / lyft:

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

What? The whole Uber board, all their execs and their staff think this is a good idea? I don’t get how these things get decided in some companies.

Every cab I have ever got in has had a video camera with a note saying that they are recording.

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.

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.

> 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 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?

It’s already a public environment with a stranger listening in. I wouldn’t be doing anything secret in there.

What kind of idiot has a private conversation in a cab? Did you think the driver was deaf or something?

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).

>That multinational company is probably going to put your data in an unsecured s3 bucket or a company-accessible excel spreadsheet.

You can't put an audio recording into an Excel spreadsheet.

No you would put the results of keyword spotting in one though.

Idk, remember taxicab confessions?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/6196/which-freedoms-will-americ...

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.

There are some parts of the world where you can pay for Uber rides with cash.

Since all the drivers are indirectly paid by uber isn't this completely bullshit

There are some parts of the world where you can pay for Uber rides with cash.

In what world we live where this is a good idea?!

The same one in which Uber keeps getting away with pretending its employees aren't employees.

Sadly, they probably will with the audio rec too. If I ever use Uber, I now have to remember to just shut up and not give them more datapoints...

You shutting up (being privacy conscious) is a data point

The list of places with privacy is growing thin..

I don't know how you ever imagined a cab, a small enclosed space with a stranger, was ever private.

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.

Does this put drivers at risk in two party consent states?

In many states, this is illegal without two party consent.

One would assume that the terms of service would mention it. Don't like it, don't ride.

Consent for recording in some states requires affirmative verbal consent. Burying it in the ToS is not valid, nor is a toast notification.

In that case, get audio permissions and record the user saying "yes" to the notification.

I'm skeptical, how do Amazon Echos, Google Homes, etc get consent in those states?

> Consent for recording in some states requires affirmative verbal consent

Citation? Seems like a nice place to live but I don't think any state requires more than notification

Affirmative, yes, but I believe the "verbal" part is not required, it's just the only practical way if you're recording, say, a phone conversation.

The app will no doubt get affirmative consent.

It's also illegal to start an unregulated cab service. Fortunately they had billions in VC money to fight the enforcement of those laws.

Obviously it's for the data stream, not your safety.

I do not look forward to the future of driverless cars as automated surveillance capsules with obnoxious advertisements assaulting all of your senses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com