Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

stltoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

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

#61

Post by codedokode »

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…

I am not fine with this. I don't want anyone to record me secretly let alone stream over Internet.

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

#62

Post by codedokode »

entwife wrote: post #49
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…

I, too, don't have a problem with this. Overall, video would increase safety of passenger and driver. My problem is with the comments on the video stream. For safety of passenger, I hope he obscures their names and addresses.

For safety you don't need to film people secretly or upload the video to the Internet. The driver did this for profit.

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

#64

Post by bb88 »

codedokode wrote: post #57
freehunter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want to understand why you think it's a violation of rights of people in the video. Because to me, it doesn't seem clear cut at all.

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?

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

#65

Post by jMyles »

codedokode wrote: post #61
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…

I am not fine with this. I don't want anyone to record me secretly let alone stream over Internet.

> I don't want anyone to record me secretly

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?

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

#66

Post by rmason »

Update - When first asked to comment on the story Uber said the following: "Recording passengers without their consent is illegal in some states, but not Missouri.”

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?

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

#67

Post by pseudalopex »

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…

12 US states have laws against surreptitiously recording private figures. Their media and democratic institutions seem to function about as well as the rest.

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.

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

#68

Post by codedokode »

jMyles wrote: post #65
codedokode wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not fine with this. I don't want anyone to record me secretly let alone stream over Internet.

> I don't want anyone to record me secretly 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?

If we follow your logic then sneaking around a military base with a camera is not a problem, right?

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

#69

Post by codedokode »

bb88 wrote: post #64
codedokode wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I want to understand why you think it's a violation of rights of people in the video. Because to me, it doesn't seem clear cut at all. 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 some…

Because I think that people have a right not to be secretly filmed let alone being published on the Internet. For me it seems a natural thing that doesn't need explanation.

> 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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Post reply on HN