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

#91

Post by bb88 » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 12:11 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #84

bb88 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fi…

While those are very good points, none of them seem to apply here in this specific case.

In fact it's hard to see how his behavior is illegal, given today's laws.

It might be creepy, but a lot of creepy things are not illegal.

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

#92

Post by sushid » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 5:45 AM UTC

joshlittle wrote: post #76

masonic wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that will qualify as "informed consent" for those not literate in English or the vision-impaired.

True, but my legal obligation has been fulfilled. CA Government doesn’t require me to cover every use case for the recording law as it applies to every camera recording the public.

Just curious, so if a potential passenger were unhappy with the recording (I wouldn't care FWIW) do you just cancel the trip before they ride or mark them as a no show?

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

#93

Post by freehunter » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 9:05 PM UTC

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 didn't make the argument that it was or was not creepy, the parent made that. I just said "creepy" isn't an interesting argument. If it's a violation of rights, call it that. Getting my arm chopped off might be icky, but a doctor's not going to treat "icky arm", they're going to treat a dismemberment.

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

#94

Post by stevenwliao » Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

jrgaston wrote: post #6

Remind me, why do people favor Uber over a taxi?

Uber/Lyft vs Taxi

- call by tapping a few times (vs finding dispatch phone number in every city)

- reliable ETA always on screen (vs calling dispatch for unreliable estimate)

- cheaper and always shows the price before I get in (vs more expensive and no estimate)

- never taken on scenic route and usually dropped off directly at destination (vs often driver optimizes by taking scenic route or dropping off short of destination)