71–80 of 94 posts
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.
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?
Uber partners do not have to accept every request. In fact, I don’t accept any passenger with a low score. As it turns out, there’s no shortage of passengers in San Francisco. Be nice to your driver!
Most passengers appear to be completely unaware that it is a “privilege” for a passenger to ride in my car, (not a “right”)
Resultingly, a very small group of terrible passengers feel that their abusive behavior towards others or my property is justified.
With informed consent, I do indeed record all activity in and out of the car.
If it starts to get abusive I will simply end the ride when and where it is safe to do so.
When one enters my car, they’re inside my privately owned vehicle. If they don’t like being recorded - They can probably easily find a ride with a different driver.
Of course, everybody I drive seems to be OK with this arrangement, as my driver score is 4.99 stars.
This is what I have written / posted: ——————————
First, welcome to my car!
If you’re reasonable, decent, empathetic human who understands how painful it is for me to have to write the following informed consent disclaimer, thanks.
You are appreciated, friend.
• This car is equipped with video capture and broadcast devices.
• This equipment protects you (the passenger), Joshua (the driver), and the vehicle from a "He Said - She Said" scenario in the event of accident or an incident.
• In California, video recording does not require two party consent; only “informed consent” I.e me informing you - which this just did.
• There is no audio recording - that would require your consent.
• In addition, an abbreviated notice of active filming has been posted on all exterior passenger windows.
• If at any time you feel uncomfortable with video being captured, please inform me as soon as possible. We will work together to find a agreeable safe place to promptly end this trip. You will only be charged for the partial trip. Note that video capture and recording will continue in the event of a rapid escalation of hostilities.
Thanks for understanding!
I drive for Uber as a mental and emotional health break between contracts. Uber partners do not have to accept every request. In fact, I don’t accept any passenger with a low score. As it turns out, there’s no shortage of passengers in San Francisco. Be nice to your driver! Most passengers appear to be completely unaware that it is a “privilege” for a passenger to ride in my car, (not a “right”) Resultingly, a very s…
I drive for Uber as a mental and emotional health break between contracts. Uber partners do not have to accept every request. In fact, I don’t accept any passenger with a low score. As it turns out, there’s no shortage of passengers in San Francisco. Be nice to your driver! Most passengers appear to be completely unaware that it is a “privilege” for a passenger to ride in my car, (not a “right”) Resultingly, a very s…
I drive for Uber as a mental and emotional health break between contracts. Uber partners do not have to accept every request. In fact, I don’t accept any passenger with a low score. As it turns out, there’s no shortage of passengers in San Francisco. Be nice to your driver! Most passengers appear to be completely unaware that it is a “privilege” for a passenger to ride in my car, (not a “right”) Resultingly, a very s…
I doubt that will qualify as "informed consent" for those not literate in English or the vision-impaired.
CA Government doesn’t require me to cover every use case for the recording law as it applies to every camera recording the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You cannot rationalize someone's malicious intent to exploit and profit off of trust people place in you by getting into your cab on the gig economy, or anything else. That's a slippery slope where bad actors place blame on non causal issues for their actions
I am neither rationalizing it, nor justifying it. However, having spent several years homeless and found that classism, sexism and other societal crap were huge barriers to me getting my life back, I think it is unrealistic and cruel to not criticize the sick system that helps foster such bad choices. If you make it hard enough to make good choices that you approve of, don't be shocked when some people's moral fiber…
Uber is in the business of pushing exploitation as far as possible. And they are not the only company doing this in the self-destructive frenzy of late stage capitalism.
The official narrative is that everyone has a choice, while removing as much choice as possible for most.
> Missouri is a one-party consent state There you have it- and a private car with a stranger driving is not a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a non-story. Uber drivers near me have cameras, not for twitch, but just to protect themselves against unruly/lying passengers.
I think we can do without obvious troll usernames here, no matter how noteworthy your comments may be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am neither rationalizing it, nor justifying it. However, having spent several years homeless and found that classism, sexism and other societal crap were huge barriers to me getting my life back, I think it is unrealistic and cruel to not criticize the sick system that helps foster such bad choices. If you make it hard enough to make good choices that you approve of, don't be shocked when some people's moral fiber…
I don't see how any of what you said applies to the current story. We don't know whether the driver has financial problems or not. On the surface, it seems likely that the driver is simply an unethical person who is abusing his customers' trust for money and/or fame.
See also the Conjunction fallacy / Linda Problem: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-superhuman-mind/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
For example, in England you're allowed to use CCTV but you need to register with ICO and you can only use that video for law enforcement purposes - eg if someone vomits in your car you could use the video when you sue that person.