
St Louis Uber driver has been streaming his passengers online. Most have no idea - heyheyhey
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-uber-driver-has-put-video-of-hundreds-of/article_9060fd2f-f683-5321-8c67-ebba5559c753.html
======
DoreenMichele
_Gargac’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 entertaining
rides._

So, the Gig Economy, where so many workers are underpaid and have no benefits,
etc, mated with the Internet version of Reality TV and this is their bastard
child.

I find it disturbing, but I think the conversation here should really be about
"What can the average person realistically do who doesn't want to be a wage
slave anymore?" I mean, if we want people to not whore out their passengers'
lives in a grotesque modern version of _Candid Camera_ for cash, maybe we
should, like, create jobs with adequate pay and benefits.

Bizarre concept, I know, that treating all your citizens like they deserve a
living wage, medical care and basic, decent housing might promote ethical
behavior. But I'm putting it out there anyway.

~~~
writepub
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

~~~
DoreenMichele
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 fails the test and they get on with
meeting survival needs instead of ethically and high-mindedly starving.

~~~
jeffdavis
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.

~~~
michelledepeil
I feel some very valid assumptions about an uber driver were made in the
initial comment, that might explain this behaviour. These comments were made
with regards to his income situation.

I agree with you though that it might not be for making money, but just
because the driver is a morally bad individual.

A much more likely scenario than him being a bad actor is that he might've
thought he had found a hole in the market that would bring him 15 minutes of
fame, and that's where his rational and moral thoughts went out the window.

------
walrus01
I do not agree with streaming but there are a LOT of uber and lyft drivers
that now use cameras which record the interior of the car. If you pick up a
lot of drunk people inevitably a bunch of them are going to be assholes, pick
fights, claim sexual harassment when there was none, vomit in the back of the
car and then deny the cleaning charge, etc. I do not envy the "dealing with
the random public" part that full time uber/lyft drivers have to handle.

~~~
codedokode
If you warn them that they are recorded then it would be ok. But, as the
article states, many people refuse to ride in this case.

------
orastor
Some videos are still up:
[https://www.twitch.tv/justsmurf/videos/all](https://www.twitch.tv/justsmurf/videos/all)

Creepy as fuck to be honest

~~~
freehunter
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.

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

~~~
bb88
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?

~~~
codedokode
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_photography)

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

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

~~~
bb88
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.

------
Symbiote
Does anyone have a feeling for what the GDPR fine would be, if this had taken
place in Europe? The number of people affected is fairly small, but this isn't
the usual negligence or incompetence.

(Ironically, the site is geoblocked for the EU.)

~~~
DanBC
In England it'd be a letter ("Information notice") from the regulator
explaining that this use needs to be registered.

After that it'd be fine of about a few thousand pounds. Here's the ICO page
for enforcement action: [https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-
taken/enforcement/](https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/)

Here's a CCTV case (without further publishing): [https://ico.org.uk/action-
weve-taken/enforcement/noble-desig...](https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-
taken/enforcement/noble-design-and-build-of-telford/)

------
fatjokes
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?

~~~
joshlittle
Technically, it is against policy to transport minors under 18; that’s up to
the driver.

------
underwater
Cowardly behaviour to hide behind the “it’s legal” line. If the majority of
your passengers, who don’t know they’re on camera, think this is creepy then
ethically you’re in the wrong.

------
Scoundreller
This would never happen in Canada... our data rates are too outrageous to make
this viable.

------
joshlittle
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 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!

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

~~~
joshlittle
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.

~~~
sushid
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?

------
allard
He's been suspended from Twitch and Uber —
[https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2018/07/21/creepy-s...](https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2018/07/21/creepy-
st-louis-uber-driver-who-livestreams-his-passengers-suspended-on-twitch).

------
Simulacra
This is seriously not OK. I guess I’m going to have to carry around a hat or
something and keep my head down whenever I get into a Lyft. It might be legal,
but it’s truly not OK especially when people don’t know they are being
streamed live. I hope Uber wises up and does something about this guy.

------
benmarks
This guy is one indecent exposure instance away from potentially serious legal
issues.

------
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?

------
codedokode
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.

~~~
nojvek
The US Govt surprisingly has very lax laws towards privacy. I guess you can’t
build a govt for the people when corporate money runs the system.

------
benmarks
Reminds me of the Ryan Is Driving YouTube channel from Charleston:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKhK5Ysw9DpHNNEVSAu0yIA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKhK5Ysw9DpHNNEVSAu0yIA)

He tends to blur out faces, except for extraordinary circumstances.

------
bdcravens
Ring doorbell cameras record without consent, and can be shared via their
neighborhood feature. Uber vehicles, like homes with Ring cameras, are private
property. Aside from Uber serving as a middleman between private citizens and
private property, what's the difference?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
For one thing, doorbell cameras aren't generally streamed to the entire world.

~~~
dnautics
would it make a difference if they were?

~~~
r00fus
Yeah I think so. Also if someone is clearly profiting from my privacy breach
I'm going to be further upset.

Mind you I often, when going to people's houses ask them to turn off their
Alexa or whatever and they're pretty happy to.

Hidden trigger phrases or targeted spying are a real hard to discover
possibility.

------
codedokode
By the way an adequate response would be to publish driver's full name, photo
and address and tell the story on the local news. So that everyone around
knows who he is and he can better understand how victims felt.

------
WalterGR
What is the expectation of privacy in a vehicle in a public place, according
to the law?

I’m not weighing in on what it _should_ be - not being a lawyer I’m curious
what the law or precedent dictates.

~~~
_rpd
I think the fact that he is making money from the videos puts the situation
into a different category, so that publicity rights come into play ...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights)

------
annaleelady
Insane! The driver wants his privacy respected by not having reporters include
his full name in the stories...

------
MangezBien
Of course this dude is trying to be a cop.

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

~~~
efficax
In NYC, I'll take a cab. Just about everywhere else in America I get a Lyft.
Why? Because taxi dispatch sucks. The cabs never come, or they come very late.
The dispatch operators are rude if you ask where the cab you called is. In
some places, like Albany, NY, the cabs will take detours to pick up other
passengers without asking you or telling you that's what will happen. Etc.

If you live in most of America, and want to get somewhere, and the public
transit sucks, Lyft gets you there. Taxis just don't.

------
machinesmachine
You know this episode of Black Mirror with Hamm...? Nevermind

------
jMyles
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 surveillance is ongoing via state
institutions. Are we perhaps bothered by our conscience a bit here?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _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"?

~~~
jMyles
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?

~~~
DanBC
It's neither novel nor interesting, and other countries have already regulated
this.

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.

------
writepub
This guy is a veteran?!! What a shame, that someone sworn to protect Americans
now cowers behind semantics and loopholes to exploit their trust!! Clearly
ridership dropped on notifying them of the streaming, no excuse can hide the
truth here - he wants to exploit their trust!

For shame! And unlike the proud, honest veterans who actually care for
Americans!

Edit: any lawyers here? Can this become a federal wiretapping case, as twitch
streams across state lines? Like gambling online relies on meaningless
semantics of being within a state that allows for such?

~~~
jdavis703
I'm not a veteran, but I did take the oath of office. To me, the oath that I
swore to uphold is to defend American government institutions (and
particularly the agency I worked for) against foreign and domestic enemies. My
oath doesn't mean I have any special commitments to _individual_ American
citizens acting in an individual capacity.

~~~
writepub
Indeed, semantics.

Wherever Americans specifically call out their gratitude for veteran's
service, they're not thanking them for their allegiance to government
institutions that may or may not be on their side. They specifically perceive
veterans to be selflessly protecting 'the people'

