Live data from Hacker News

She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

cbc.ca

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#61
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last Lyft I took had two big stickers on the rear passenger-side window warning that by getting into the car, I give consent to being videotaped and audio recorded. But what are you going to do? Not get in? Then you have to pay a no-show fee, and eventually get banned from the app.

Either “vote with your wallet” , which large companies love as it gives them the power (they have a bigger wallet), or vote with your vote and elect representatives which stop this.

> or vote with your vote and elect representatives which stop this.

And when all the choices of representative have already been bought and paid for with the lobbying power of that larger wallet?

This topic is especially nefarious as it's not just Lyft a representative has to worry about. Every company out there craves data; if not for direct usage, then for resale. Someone campaigning for privacy / data reform would be pissing off nearly every tech company in existence. So even if Lyft isn't lobbying (and we know they are), there's plenty of others that would be upset by stronger laws here.

It sure seems to me that we lost the privacy war a long time ago. Most houses have a slew of microphones and cameras owned by very large corporations, that came with legalese in the box stating they can do whatever the hell they want. And people plugged them in. Everyone carries smartphones tracking where the go, most loaded with apps harvesting as much data as Apple/Google lets them get away with, not to mention what Apple/Google are doing themselves.

I fear we are getting closer and closer to the time when the population finds out why we had those laws in the first place. There's an inflection point here that scares the hell out of me.

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#62

I hope what is happening in the US right now, with people getting deported for writing Op-Eds criticizing US foreign policy, is a temporarily thing and not the direction we are heading into. But if it isn't temporarily, we should expect surveillance like discussed in this article to grow and our opinions to be monitored in a more pervasive fashion. It is a relatively trivial matter from a technology standpoint to fee…

[flagged]

> If a non-US citizen disrupted your commute or college class for a position you found reprehensible, it's likely you might feel the same.

First: Just to be completely clear, there is a leaked memo from the US state department yesterday on this particular student I am referring to and there was no evidence the US State Department could find of anti-semitism or law breaking, but they are pushing to deport her anyhow because of she peacefully expressed views that disagreed with US foreign policy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/13/...

> US citizens enjoy rights non-US citizens do not, the same way membership conveys benefits

Second: Trump has spoken about wanting to denaturalize and then deport US citizens abroad. Citizenship is clearly not a barrier to this administration: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#63
post #60
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>recorded and will be analyzed, possibly leaked in the future in a world where you can trivially create vocal deep fakes with a few samples. If that's your threat model, you should be far more concerned about recorded zoom meetings or customer support calls, rather than a surveillance camera that in a likelihood isn't even networked.

That's a strange reply in a thread about being texted a (likely LLM generated) transcript of your conversation after getting out of a ride-share. How did that happen without being networked? I know when I am being recorded in a meeting and it's in a professional setting, not a casual one. Not comparable.

>How did that happen without being networked?

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43680387

>I know when I am being recorded in a meeting and it's in a professional setting, not a casual one. Not comparable.

Irrelevant if you're trying to not get deepfaked. It's like complaining about Lyft recordings possibly used to train deepfakes or whatever, when you work as a podcaster. Sure, the recording might be bad because it was done without consent, but it's risible to object to it on the basis of "possibly leaked in the future in a world where you can trivially create vocal deep fakes with a few samples"

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#64
post #49

> These ride-sharing apps are big companies and people have a lot of sensitive conversations within cabs and they feel like they're secure why would anyone think talking in a car driven by a stranger is secure!?

There's a difference between having a conversation with the expectation it will be casually overheard and having a conversation with the expectation it's permanently recorded and will be analyzed, possibly leaked in the future in a world where you can trivially create vocal deep fakes with a few samples.

The difference is naivety. If you're in someone else's house or car it's so trivial to record audio that it may even be done unintentionally by dash cams, security systems, or cellphones. Assuming that it's not happening while you're out somewhere is dangerous.

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#65
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surveillance of non-citizens on US soil implies surveillance of citizens.

No, the surveillors will be issued with special microphones that are capable of detecting the residence status of the speaker from ultrasonics and not recording it. (/sarcasm, although I'm sure someone will make an argument almost as ludicrous about how this is actually fine) Also, I'm sure citizenship is a perfectly fixed status that it's not possible for the administration to decide to change administratively by al…

[deleted]

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last Lyft I took had two big stickers on the rear passenger-side window warning that by getting into the car, I give consent to being videotaped and audio recorded. But what are you going to do? Not get in? Then you have to pay a no-show fee, and eventually get banned from the app.

I prefer that they're video and audio recording. I just wish they'd share it with me after each ride as routine. Auto-recording everything in public places would be safer for everybody. As long as it's also all on the public record.

Great idea ! Now your stalker can just access public records to know all your daily routine, what an utopia

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#67

I hope what is happening in the US right now, with people getting deported for writing Op-Eds criticizing US foreign policy, is a temporarily thing and not the direction we are heading into. But if it isn't temporarily, we should expect surveillance like discussed in this article to grow and our opinions to be monitored in a more pervasive fashion. It is a relatively trivial matter from a technology standpoint to fee…

[flagged]

So just we’re clear, there are countries where U.S. citizens have no rights or very limited.

So you’re perfectly fine with these countries, for example, executing US citizens without due process if they visit those countries right, because the standard you apparently want to hold the government to is basically the bare minimum rights an individual has vis a vis that government.

Also, you overestimate the rights US citizens have as well. Under Obama, for example, the government targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination. After Trump 1 the SC essentially said everything the President does is legal.

There is absolutely no reason that the President couldn’t completely target a U.S. citizen for assassination for no reason other than they didn’t like the color of their hair, and by your standard you’re absolutely fine with that.

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#68

I hope what is happening in the US right now, with people getting deported for writing Op-Eds criticizing US foreign policy, is a temporarily thing and not the direction we are heading into. But if it isn't temporarily, we should expect surveillance like discussed in this article to grow and our opinions to be monitored in a more pervasive fashion. It is a relatively trivial matter from a technology standpoint to fee…

[flagged]

I would recommend that you verify your claim with a very simple google search: first amendment for non-citizens. This cursory search will tell you that:

> Yes, the First Amendment applies to non-citizens within the United States, protecting their freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. This protection extends to all individuals within the country, regardless of their citizenship status.

Your own government is trying hard to sideline your own constitution.

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last Lyft I took had two big stickers on the rear passenger-side window warning that by getting into the car, I give consent to being videotaped and audio recorded. But what are you going to do? Not get in? Then you have to pay a no-show fee, and eventually get banned from the app.

I prefer that they're video and audio recording. I just wish they'd share it with me after each ride as routine. Auto-recording everything in public places would be safer for everybody. As long as it's also all on the public record.

I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not.

In case you're not, how would having everything you say in public being part of the public record be safer for everybody?

Re: She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

#70
post #63
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange reply in a thread about being texted a (likely LLM generated) transcript of your conversation after getting out of a ride-share. How did that happen without being networked? I know when I am being recorded in a meeting and it's in a professional setting, not a casual one. Not comparable.

>How did that happen without being networked? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43680387 >I know when I am being recorded in a meeting and it's in a professional setting, not a casual one. Not comparable. Irrelevant if you're trying to not get deepfaked. It's like complaining about Lyft recordings possibly used to train deepfakes or whatever, when you work as a podcaster. Sure, the recording might be bad beca…

So your response is to accept someone's speculation when the company themselves says they are piloting a recording program in the US (however they say the case in the article was not part of this). Given what is in the article, the speculation you linked to is irrelevant.

You are taking a threat model that assumes all recordings have equivalent risk of leakage. On a long enough time scale, you're probably right. I think there is a spectrum of risk that is also based on trust. I trust a company focused on audio/video to handle the materials appropriately a lot more than I do a company where this isn't their core competency.

While /any/ recording presents a risk, recordings you are unaware of are significantly higher risk because you can't do much of anything about them.

You are making a false equivalence and desperately trying to defend it. The two things are not the same.

Post reply on HN