Slashdot Mirror


Uber Sued Over Driver Data Breach, Adding To Legal Woes

wabrandsma writes with news about the latest trouble facing Uber. "Uber Technologies Inc has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit over a recently disclosed data breach involving the personal information of about 50,000 drivers, the latest in a series of legal woes to hit the Internet car service. The suit, filed Thursday in federal court in San Francisco by Sasha Antman, an Uber driver in Portland, Oregon, says the company did not do enough to prevent the 2014 breach and waited too long — about five months — to disclose it. Antman says Uber violated a California law requiring companies to safeguard employee's personal information."

32 comments

  1. God view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Uber, are the company that implements a god view mode to track you using the phone app.

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/uber-god-mode-spy-on-you

    "It was revealed that Uber employees at the corporate level—not Uber drivers—can track anyone anywhere at anytime using something called 'god view', which doesn't sound terrifying at all. ....A Buzzfeed news reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, claims that she was illegally tracked after she traveled to a meeting with the General Manager of Uber New York, Josh Mohrer. Mohrer was allegedly waiting for Bhuyain at the company's Long Island City headquarters where he told the reporter, "I was tracking you" and pointed to his phone."

    Note that the app can track you when its not running, and when you're not using the service. It continues to record and transmit your location data and ids. It's worth noting that Google does the exact same thing, as do many of these apps, and Android does not let you withhold the location data from an app when you choose. Turning off the GPS does not fix it, they triangulate by radio tower and Wifi when GPS is off.

    You don't implement a God View unless you think your God, and you don't record all this data unless you intend to use it.

    1. Re:God view by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

      > and [stock] Android does not let you withhold the location data

      Root your phone and install one of the many granular permission managers.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  2. Who could of guessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That uber was cutting corners for the sake of profit.. Oh right, everyone!

    1. Re:Who could of guessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uber was known as a "tech company" and therefore exempt from Taxi laws.
      Now Uber is known as a taxi company to try to escape their failed technology issues?

  3. Invasive data collection by sinij · · Score: 1

    With kinds of information (e.g. hookups) Uber collects, data breach is very serious.

    1. Re:Invasive data collection by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      All that data is probably very useful for the NSA: "Where has target X been driven to?"

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re: Invasive data collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why they would care where you've driven to and not just where you are all the time. Because I'm fairly certain they already have the "where are you all the time"....

    3. Re: Invasive data collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's a massive difference between "I happened to be here" and "I specifically took a cab to get here".

  4. There will be another. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Often, the first company to bring a product or service to market with a disruptive technology fails. But inevitably there is another company that comes behind them and learns from the mistakes that were made. Uber will eventually go public, the stock will go up and then crash, and the company will shut its doors or be bought dirt cheap by someone else. Another company will follow that will be the messiah of dot com transportation and will take the world by storm. That's the company you want to invest in.

  5. Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drivers are not employed by Uber, rather they are employed by the person whom they are giving a lift to. Uber is simply the intermediate of which the two connect to one another - much like a telephone company. On that basis alone this case will flop as Uber does not owe drivers the same duty of care that an employer would owe an employee.

    1. Re:Case will flop. by crunchy_one · · Score: 2

      Drivers are not employed by Uber, rather they are employed by the person whom they are giving a lift to. Uber is simply the intermediate of which the two connect to one another - much like a telephone company. On that basis alone this case will flop as Uber does not owe drivers the same duty of care that an employer would owe an employee.

      You may be able to outsource the work; but, the responsibility is still yours. Hopefully the courts will see through this shell game fiction.

    2. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This "shell game" fiction happens to be the truth of the matter and historically has always been held up by the courts. At no point are the drivers in the employment (directly or otherwise) of Uber. Uber's business is to provide an application platform that connects drivers with passengers. Both of those parties voluntarily use the service that Uber provides in accordance with its Terms of Service. Drivers are no more an employee of Uber than the passengers themselves, ergo, they're not.

      To say otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

    3. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with your ride? Driver threatened you? Not our business, nothing to do with us. Never seen the man before, officer! You had a great ride and everything went fine? Oh, we'll take our cut then, we're an important part of the process.

      Same with AirBnB. Put as much of the work and liability on the 'contractor' as you can, then settle down to collect your rents worry-free.

      Sometimes I think the biggest innovation to come out of Silicon Valley recently is blame-deflection technology. Oh brave new world, that hath such middlemen in't!

    4. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are not an employee of Amazon, but I think you'd be mightily upset if Amazon leaked your personal data.

      There is a duty of care with personal data, and it's clear Uber did not live up to their side of it.

    5. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is true, and Uber uses it as a shield to not provide any protections to passengers, then they will fail. If it starts to happen a little more and people become more aware of the situation, nobody will use the service because it's too risky. Somebody else will step in and succeed. It's similar to credit cards, who provide a method to dispute charges. E-Bay wouldn't be successful if they didn't police the sellers and left all the buyers hanging in the wind.

    6. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only "intellectual dishonesty" occurring here is you failing to identify yourself as an Uber PR flack.

    7. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European law and judges have taken a dim view to such trickery. In Germany something like that is called "Scheinselbständigkeit", which means disguised employment (literally "sham independent contracting").

    8. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, as the the provider, Uber can still be liable for tort.

    9. Re: Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being "disruptive" means never having to be held accountable. Or at least that's the business model of too many companies lately.

    10. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrible analogy. If the phone company had a data breach they would be liable.

      UBER just tries to skirt whatever rules it pleases and its fans find a way to defend them.

    11. Re:Case will flop. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      fedex try to make there drivers independent contractions and lost in the courts.

    12. Re:Case will flop. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "This "shell game" fiction happens to be the truth of the matter and historically has always been held up by the courts."

      Wrong, and the state of California has quite often said "Uh, no, you've improperly classified your employees as independent contractors" using a set of criteria, all of which not necessarily needs to be met, for the standard of 'employee' versus 'contractor' to be determined.

      Papa John's tried your same logic - that their customer hired the driver to deliver the pizza, not the employee (hence delivery charges.)

      That failed miserably.

      I guess you fail to understand that, and thus your intelliectual dishonesty shows.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that in specific cases firms which have claimed to hire contractors have lost in court and had the contractors re-designated as employees does not logically imply that uber drivers are employees. As others have noted, there are specific criteria against which courts determine if a person designated as a contractor is, in fact an employee. IANAL so I won't speculate as to the outcome other than saying it is hardly a forgone conclusion that Uber drivers are actually employees as a matter of law. The real tricky part for Uber will be, assuming they retain contractor designation for now, then, going forward, the more they try to improve the service by dictating things on the driver end (cleanliness, etc.) the more likely they are to be re-defined as employees.

    14. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which drivers? The ones over their?

    15. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you do realize that laws regarding safety of private information apply to anyone who stores them right? it has nothing to do whether the drivers are "employees" or "users" or "clients" or whatever you choose to call them...

    16. Re:Case will flop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to add to this - look up "California S.B 1386". And yes, Uber is registered in SF, CA so it very much applies to them...

  6. Nuisance suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical nuisance suit. It amounts to the plaintiff's attorneys calling the Uber legal department and requesting (extorting?) a few millions. Of course the exchange drags out over a couple of years justifying the expense on both sides. Private personal data in the modern world is almost non existent. Get used to it.

  7. No employee data was leaked. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Uber probably calls all its employers "partners" or "contractors". It is not the first company. There is this non profit behemoth in Pittsburgh called UPMC. It is totally vertically integrated owning everything from parking garages and ambulances all the way to world leading organ transplant and artificial organ works. But it calls itself non-profit but pays its top C?Os better than for-profit hospitals. Owns a web of companies which all act one-way-valves. Liabilities flow one way assets and profits flow the other way. It calls its employees contractors to avoid paying payroll taxes. Same way Amazon too is spawning shell companies and eventually is able to call all its employees temp staff provided by staffing agencies.

    So laws protecting "employees" will not stand in court because Uber has no employees other than the top C?O team.

    I am also amused by so many people with employer-provided health insurance dissing obamacare. In the last generation so many of the companies offered pensions and generous health insurance. Just in 10 years all the employees had been corralled into HMOs and the pension plans have disappeared. Just look at the speed at which HMOs were shoved down your throat. All it takes would be a couple of big employers opting out of providing health care, all other companies would follow suit. Remember how fast they competed with one another to out source IT jobs!. It will happen that fast.

    It is time for people who work for a salary to re examine their long standing assumptions about their relationship with their employers.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Omg by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Will there be no end to the protectionists' backlash?