He's been suspended from Twitch and Uber — https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2018/07/21/creepy-s....
St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
81–90 of 94 posts
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#82Earlier 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…
Being allowed to record video (e.g. in a cab for security reasons) does not imply you can freely publish it. Copyright doesn't say anything about potential other rights of the people depicted - e.g. copyright of a photograph of a person doesn't imply you can freely use it for all purposes.
That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, audio recording without consent is not legal, but Missouri appears to be one-party-consent.
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Being allowed to record video (e.g. in a cab for security reasons) does not imply you can freely publish it. Copyright doesn't say anything about potential other rights of the people depicted - e.g. copyright of a photograph of a person doesn't imply you can freely use it for all purposes. That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, au…
That makes no sense. If I have the right to record a video, I also have the right to publish the video as well.
Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being allowed to record video (e.g. in a cab for security reasons) does not imply you can freely publish it. Copyright doesn't say anything about potential other rights of the people depicted - e.g. copyright of a photograph of a person doesn't imply you can freely use it for all purposes. That said, in the US these rights are very weak compared to other countries, so this might very well be legal. In some states, au…
That makes no sense. If I have the right to record a video, I also have the right to publish the video as well. Otherwise news outlets would never be able to publish the video they capture, especially in the coverage of breaking news.
That's not a logical argument. I did not say you never have the right, you don't necessarily have it, so news publishing video doesn't mean anything about other cases. In most jurisdictions, news explicitly have "high-priority" rights (freedom of press etc) to publish things related to current issues even if they can't be published for other purposes.
There's a reason things like model releases for photography and film exist: Having the copyright for something does not mean you have full freedom to use it. Again, in the US these rights tend to be limited, but even there they exist. E.g. while you can freely photograph in public (which is not the case everywhere in the world), you can't use people's image for advertising without permission, you can't freely use photos of artwork in public places or of some buildings, ..., all despite having the copyright on your images.
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#85Gargac’s videos fit into the newer “IRL,” or “In Real Life,” section that encourages users to stream their life outside of games. Gargac says he’s earned about $3,500 off Twitch users so far, including subscriptions, donations and tips called “bits.” That’s on top of about $150 to $300 he earns from fares on an average night. He typically drives on weekend nights because, he says, the bar crowd makes for the most ent…
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
>You cannot rationalize someone's malicious intent to exploit and profit off of trust people place in you
What? That's Hacker News' favorite thing to do.
>by getting into your cab on the gig economy
OH. Right. Yeah. They're doing it face to face, not from behind apps and contracts of adhesion. Very different. Carry on.
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#86Earlier 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.
>What is creepy for you is not very relevant here.
Then (grandparent poster should) select better adjectives when making a point.
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#87Earlier 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.
Your thesis basically is that this could never happen in Canada or happens less frequently in canada. It could be true.
But there seem to be lots of these in canada too
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/uber-scam-driver-polic...
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#88Insane! The driver wants his privacy respected by not having reporters include his full name in the stories...
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 netwo…
Thanks for replying.
I think there's a wide gulf between what people estimate their rights to be and their actual rights granted to them by law.
I understand your sentiment with not having your image spread throughout the internet without your permission, but asking for that right would break journalism.
I'd be up for a fix so long as it doesn't create criminals of both professional photographers and tourists livestreaming on times square, say.
Re: St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Your thesis basically is that this could never happen in Canada or happens less frequently in canada. It could be true. But there seem to be lots of these in canada too https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/uber-scam-driver-polic...
My thesis is more like "You can't reasonably assume he is merely a malicious ass hat given the crap going on in the US today and the lack of certain details in the article."
I'm not saying such people don't exist. I'm just saying that when the system actively makes it hard enough to survive while doing things the world would approve of, don't be all shocked when some folks stop caring about the world's approval and start caring more about their bottom line.