- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.world
A pilot for recording conversation during Lyft rides is going on in some U.S. cities, but it’s not supposed to be happening in Canada. A Toronto woman was sent the conversation between her and her friends during a ride, presumably accidentally.
You must log in or register to comment.
So let me get this straight, they want us to believe the driver recorded their conversation, sent it to a transcription service, then texted it to them? And that their rep also lied about there being a pilot program?
Uh huh. What would either of their motives be?
If the company recorded without consent of the drivers or passengers then its illegal in Canada (could be just Ontario though)
If they blame the driver then there’s no crime as we are one party consent.
But why would the driver text it to them?
I don’t think one party consent even applies if the driver was not part of the conversation. It says it was between the woman and her friends if I’m understanding correctly.
They didn’t have the presumption of privacy from the driver. Driver was clearly visible to them, make himself known to them and was clearly within earshot.
They might have also agreed to being recorded in some slimy Terms and Conditions in the ride share app.
If it’s one party consent and the driver consented that should be it
We get into the grey here, because the passengers probably didn’t include the driver as a participant. You have to be a participant for one-party to hold.
Also, if the conversation was recorded automatically, with no action from the driver, does that count as the driver recording the convo, or the company that controls the recording device?
But it’s hard to argue that the driver isn’t a participant considering that they’d be within touching distance and in no way blocked off from the conversation. Even without actually saying anything, the driver was a passive particapant, or at least it would be argued that way if it ever went to court.
Since only one side needs to give permission to record, and since that permission likely can be taken in the EULA, no matter how scummy it is, this most likely isn’t illegal. It’s like claiming that a a porch camera can’t record a crime because the camera’s owner wasn’t a direct participant of the crime.
I ain’t no law-talking guy.
Someone could make the argument that because the driver was a hired professional they shouldn’t be party of the conversations of their clients or some such.
As I said, grey area.
Is anyone really surprised, UBER asks for microphone access as a security feature, so you can click record if the driver or passenger feels unsafe. Seems like an extension of this service that maybe wasn’t supposed to be directly shared unless am incident happened
You’re always being recorded. Techbros do this on purpose. If they get caught they feign innocence.
They skirt the fringes of legislation anyways so it’s not like there’s ever legal consequences. On the rare occasions there are. It’s a paltry monetary fine.
So is anyone going to get to the bottom of this? Will there be a lawsuit? This is an incredible breach of privacy and raises profound questions about what is going on at Lyft and any ride-sharing service for that matter. The non-answers provided by Lyft raise even more questions.
For Canadians who may be concerned about data privacy, especially US-based companies that may be subject to giving access to the US government under the US Patriot Act and/or Cloud Act, it might be worth the time to write some politicians for action.
There’s PIPEDA for federal level, as mentioned in the article, and there’s municipal level too. Most major cities have by-laws that govern Vehicles-for-Hire.
I’m not sure what they can do about this issue, but it’s worth raising the concern with your councillor in addition to your MP.
WAS sent. FFS
White nose machine should put an end to that.