People still would have to agree to the price. If it is too high they will not accept. By having more information Uber would be able to make better offers. Hiding information for financial gain, getting a better deal, is fraud.
Also a better offer for who? Uber obviously.
This is a level of corporate apologism I can’t understand. If Uber is the only one to gain by using this information (and they are), this is purely a negative for consumers. Not sure why anyone would defend this practice and hand waving that people still have to accept the price is absurd.
If Uber put up a line item on your transaction that said “Low battery fee” then fine. They’re not. They didn’t want people to know.
I would support them disclosing it, but the circumstances are not the same as one party is submitting information for a quote and another party is providing the quote. In this exchange, fraud on uber's side would be lying about what the quote is.
>this is purely a negative for consumers
That doesn't mean it is right. Shoplifting being illegal is pure a negative for consumers too.
Such bullshit. If I have to go somewhere and my battery is about to die, I don't really have much of a choice.
> "Hiding information for financial gain, getting a better deal, is fraud."
Doesn't this goes both ways? "Hiding information" is precisely what Uber is doing, when they don't transparently disclose 100% of the information used to determine price with a customer.
And no, not disclosing whether I have good battery percentage or not is not "hiding information", except in the most uncharitable interpretation possible. Uber doesn't have the right to know everything about me just because they're potentially providing a service.
You can walk, bike, find somewhere to charge your phone, call a friend, use another ride sharing app, use a car you own, etc.
>Doesn't this goes both ways?
I do not believe hiding the algolithm to arrive at a price is fraud. Most business are not transparent why the things they sell cost what they do. It is up to buyers to evaluate whether they value the good or service more than the money they have.
>Uber doesn't have the right to know everything about me just because they're potentially providing a service.
I agree, but when submitting information to them shouldn't be tampered with to get a better deal. There is a difference between just using a privacy feature that always reports your battery to be 100%, and using that feature to deliberately get a better deal from Uber. Not providing information is fine, but the intent behind not giving away the information should not be to get a better deal.
"Another ride sharing app" without battery? If you're without battery this is the exact point where you won't be doing price comparison. This is malicious as fuck.
The rest of those are not available during emergencies where people are far away, without transportation and with low battery. If Uber is really doing it, it clearly is doing that to force people to pay more during those kinds of emergencies, and if they're doing it is because they have data on it.
> "I do not believe hiding the algolithm to arrive at a price is fraud."
I never said anything about an algorithm, I said about collecting data. If Uber is not being transparent about the data it collects during the process of calling a ride, it is spying on me. Period.
"I agree, but when submitting information to them shouldn't be tampered with to get a better deal."
Who is "submitting information"? Uber spying on a customer is not "submitting information.
How long until computer people understand that the existence of an API is not a permission for billion-dollar companies to spy on users and use that to fuck customers?
If someone is in an emergency and have no other option then they will likely value getting an Uber more and would be willing to pay for one.
>Who is "submitting information"?
The app.
You just repeated what I said.
"The app."
If an app is the one submitting information without knowledge and consent of the user, then there's no fraud from the user part. But there might be illegal behavior from the app maker's part in some jurisdictions.
In what world? While your take is wrong, I just wonder where could you get this idea from?
This to me would be a case of fraud. Whether commiting fraud like this is illegal is a legal question.
Hiding information about why or how much you want a good/service is absolutely not fraud, morally or legally (IANAL).
On the other hand, giving misleading info about something you're selling probably is.