St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea • Hacker News Board

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#51

Post by setr » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:01 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #45

dominotw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if providing benefits would offset the temptation to earn 3.5k extra income. Case in point, This guy is an army vet so presumably he already has health benefits. > treating all your citizens non citizen population need benefits too.

Gargac began driving for Uber, and occasionally Lyft, in early March. He was livestreaming all of his rides by the end of that month. 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 annu…

>Sounds to me like, yes, universal basic health coverage absolutely could help someone resist the temptation for that amount of money.

...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.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#52

Post by r00fus » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:01 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #8

I do not agree with streaming but there are a LOT of uber and lyft drivers that now use cameras which record the interior of the car. If you pick up a lot of drunk people inevitably a bunch of them are going to be assholes, pick fights, claim sexual harassment when there was none, vomit in the back of the car and then deny the cleaning charge, etc. I do not envy the "dealing with the random public" part that full tim…

Yeah it's the profit that pushes this right into unethical territory.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#53

Post by Simulacra » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

This is seriously not OK. I guess I’m going to have to carry around a hat or something and keep my head down whenever I get into a Lyft. It might be legal, but it’s truly not OK especially when people don’t know they are being streamed live. I hope Uber wises up and does something about this guy.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#54

Post by bdowling » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:37 PM UTC

writepub wrote: post #5

This guy is a veteran?!! What a shame, that someone sworn to protect Americans now cowers behind semantics and loopholes to exploit their trust!! Clearly ridership dropped on notifying them of the streaming, no excuse can hide the truth here - he wants to exploit their trust! For shame! And unlike the proud, honest veterans who actually care for Americans! Edit: any lawyers here? Can this become a federal wiretapping…

I'm not a lawyer, but here's the federal wiretapping statute for reference[0].

[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.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#55

Post by fatjokes » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

If a passenger who is a minor exposed themself to the camera, would the driver the liable for producing (and distributing) child pornography, if they somehow didn't notice and let it be posted?

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#56

Post by codedokode » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

What surprised me most is not the poor culture of the driver or the viewers but rather poor legislation in USA. They have the right to bear arms, but have no sane protection for privacy.

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.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#57

Post by codedokode » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #26

orastor wrote: post #3

Some videos are still up: https://www.twitch.tv/justsmurf/videos/all Creepy as fuck to be honest

I think “creepy” is one of the least interesting arguments someone can have. Plenty of things are creepy, and the word “creepy” itself falls into the same category as “offensive” or other very subjective accusations. “Creepy” is not a good argument. What’s offensive to you is normal to me, what’s creepy to me is normal to you.

It is a violation of rights of people captured in the video. What is creepy for you is not very relevant here.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#58

Post by jMyles » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #40

jMyles wrote: post #25

Am I the only one who has no problem with this? You're in someone else's car. Of course that person has a right to record you. And freedom of the press is a crucial cornerstone of a democratic state. Of course this person has a right to publish anything they please. This is just journalism paired with a new and novel social and technological configuration. Nothing more. Meanwhile, actual eavesdropping-style surveilla…

> Am I the only one who has no problem with this? You're in someone else's car. Of course that person has a right to record you. And freedom of the press is a crucial cornerstone of a democratic state. Of course this person has a right to publish anything they please. Is there a name for the fallacy that says "anything not actually illegal must therefore be morally correct"?

I wasn't making the case that it's merely legal and therefore OK - it's actually novel and interesting IMO. What's so wrong with it?

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#59

Post by codedokode » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #44

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one thing, doorbell cameras aren't generally streamed to the entire world.

would it make a difference if they were?

Yes, it would. It is normal that if you come to someone's door the owner can see you.

Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea

#60

Post by codedokode » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #8

I do not agree with streaming but there are a LOT of uber and lyft drivers that now use cameras which record the interior of the car. If you pick up a lot of drunk people inevitably a bunch of them are going to be assholes, pick fights, claim sexual harassment when there was none, vomit in the back of the car and then deny the cleaning charge, etc. I do not envy the "dealing with the random public" part that full tim…

If you warn them that they are recorded then it would be ok. But, as the article states, many people refuse to ride in this case.