Uber Bans Driver Who Secretly Livestreamed Hundreds of Passengers (mashable.com)

Lauren Weinstein tipped us off to this story from Mashable: Hundreds of Uber and Lyft rides have been broadcast live on Twitch by driver Jason Gargac this year, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Saturday, all of them without the passengers' permission. Gargac, who goes by the name JustSmurf on Twitch, regularly records the interior of his car while working for Uber and Lyft with a camera in the front of the car, allowing viewers to see the faces of his passengers, illuminated by his (usually) purple lights, and hear everything they say. At no point does Gargac make passengers aware that they are being filmed or livestreamed.

Due to Missouri's "one-party consent" law, in which only one party needs to agree to be recorded for it to be legal (in this case, Gargac is the consenting one), what Gargac is doing is perfectly legal. That doesn't mean it's not 100 percent creepy. Sometimes, to confirm who they are for their driver, the passengers say their full names. Not only that, Gargac has another video that shows the view out the front of his car so that people can see where he's driving, giving away the locations of some passengers' homes.

All the while, viewers on Twitch are commenting about things like the quality of neighborhoods, what the passengers are talking about, and of course, women's looks. Gargac himself is openly judgmental about the women he picks up, commenting to his viewers about their appearances before they get in his car and making remarks after he drops them off. He also regularly talks about wanting to get more "content," meaning interesting people, and is open about the fact that he doesn't want passengers to know they are on camera.
"I feel violated. I'm embarrassed," one passenger told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "We got in an Uber at 2 a.m. to be safe, and then I find out that because of that, everything I said in that car is online and people are watching me. It makes me sick."

The offending driver announced today on Twitter that he's at least "getting rid of the stored vids." He calls this move "step #1 of trying to calm everyone down." Hours ago his Twitch feed was made inaccessible.

Lyft and Twitch have not yet responded to Mashable's request for a comment. But Uber said they've (temporarily?) banned Gargac from accessing their app "while we evaluate his partnership with Uber."

Comments

employee vs contractor

[Joe_Dragon]

Now if there where real 1099's then some drivers can say I live stream rides but you rate is lower

Re:employee vs contractor

[PopeRatzo]

Slashdot needs an "Ignore User" feature. Good god.

Already have that power within you, you do, Padawan. A "feature" you need not, when your own mind you control.

valid law for business

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s a good law for business and investors, it allows proof of misconduct and harassment to be aquired by the average citizen. Glad to see Uber punishing the perv though Uberâ(TM)s CEO was a bit on the perv side as well.

Re:valid law for business

[djinn6]

These types of laws are simply too broad. There are places where it makes sense to require all party consent, and there are places (and situations) where it shouldn't require any consent. In our minds, certain places are private, where we expect our behavior to not be scrutinized. Others are public, where we put on a mask for other people's comfort and expect them to recepriocate.

Recording someone else's private conversation should require at least one of them to censent. Recording in another's home should require the homeowner's consent. Recording in a locker room should require the consent of everyone present.

On the other hand, recording a burglar breaking into your house should not require the burglar's consent. Recording a crowd of people at a mall should not require thousands of people to consent. And recording an on-duty police officer should happen by default.

Of course, I wouldn't mind a world consent laws are unnecessary: a world where nobody judges what other people do, where nobody minds what other people see them doing, and where voyeurs stick to PornHub where getting into the taxi is just the opening scene.

Re:valid law for business

[JaredOfEuropa]

IANAL and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of US law, but it seems weird that this sort of thing is legal under the "one party consent" rule. That rule is different for businesses: if you have a chat with your banker, you can record the conversation, but he (representing a business) can't, not without telling you. The same way that shops are required to put up signs if CCTV cameras are in operation. And I'd think any judge would rule that in this case, the Uber driver is representing a business (Uber's or his own).

In addition, we have laws governing what you can do with those recordings. One part consent means such recordings are allowed and admissible as evidence in court, but it most certainly doesn't give you permission to publish the material without permission or blocking out faces and street names and such. Does the US not have such laws?

Re: valid law for business

[edris90]

What is important for people to be able to know who people are underneath the mask and broadcast that to others. isn't that the key to peace in life identifying those who are compatible with your mindset and only engaging those. isn't about shift in the world for those you agree with and ignoring the rest? That is if the goal is to achieve peace and cooperation in their daily lives

Re:valid law for business

[mysidia]

IANAL and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of US law, but it seems weird that this sort of thing is legal under the "one party consent" rule.

I agree there are potential issues, since the "One party consent" only holds for conversations between the rider and the driver; If the rider pulls their cell phone out of pocket and has a conversation with someone else, then none of the parties to the conversation would have consented to the audio recording / wiretap.

It is NOT uncommon for passengers to be recorded while using paid or public transportation. What is unsettling is the live streaming of footage to the internet without passengers' knowledge or consent.

This, by the way, is a huge flagrant violation of Twitch Terms of Service and should result in at the very minimum a 24 hour channel ban and deletion of offending content for the driver deliberately streaming passengers without consent ----- that doesn't do anything about the small group of people who might've been watching the stream live, but at least (perhaps), the deletion/takedown should help prevent any footage from going viral.

Re: valid law for business

[RaviBrounstein]

Iâ(TM)m confused why everyone is calling this perverted? Hired cars have cameras all the time, you are out in public. What you say is your own responsibility. On top of that 100% legal. And Iâ(TM)ll tell you what, when that guy crashes and I get hurt Iâ(TM)ll be happy to have the video record of his negligence so I can get a bigger settlement ðY'

Re: valid law for business

[djinn6]

One, why would you want to force them to take their mask off? And two, finding peace (or happiness) in life mainly involves understanding and reconciling your own inner turmoil, through meditation and quiet contemplation. If you're trying to find peace through others when you're not at peace with yourself, it's not going to work.

Choose

[rtb61]

Either get used to this rubbish or put an end to invasion of privacy by corporations. This ass hat is just copying the exact behaviour of major corporations, with the corrupt backing of government, actively invading people's privacy for profit and control. Want it to stop, you have to stop it at the top. It is just going to get worse, living in a world of Stasi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for profit, everyone around you ready to spy and record you to exploit that information for profit and only those at the top having any pri- 'hmm', now that's an unrealistic expectation, everyone will lose their privacy and the psychos will suffer the worse, they make one public mistake, they let the real them leak out to enjoy their abuses, one leak caught and they are done (the abuses of psychopaths are often extreme and of course involve children all too often, think of the mult-billion dollar corporations spying on children so that they can psychological manipulate them and through them manipulate their parents, using systems created by slimy psychopaths with doctorates in psychology, M$, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, the axis of evil or just the worst of the worst, hmm, evil is as evil does).

Choose and perish ;D.

Re:Choose

[datavirtue]

As usual, when joe blow does it is off to prison for him. If he didn't break any laws it's just economic blackballing as we can see in this case.

Re:Choose

[Luckyo]

He did get booted off Uber according to the story, so he had someone to answer to in the same way as ones you suggest.

Re:Choose

[thegarbz]

Oh don't be daft. Conflating privacy invasion by corporations for the own personal gain with having private video and audio of you published on the internet without your knowledge is about the dumbest post I've seen on slashdot to date.

Even your rant about government is irrelevant given that what was done here is actually well and truly against the law.

Re:Choose

[AmiMoJo]

He was violating passenger's privacy for his own financial gain. It's the same thing.

Re:Choose

[thegarbz]

No he wasn't. He was actively using and publishing openly footage of his passengers for his own financial gain. Not the same thing, not theoretically, not practically and sure as fuck not legally.

Re:Choose

[Falos]

Because when you're amazon browsing and google searching, there's no apparent consequence except getting your immediate desire satisfied

Because when you're chatting away on socnets and phones (even in direct messaging) there's no apparent consequence except getting your immediate desire satisfied. Happily using the world of phone apps, all of which dump so many analytics and metrics that they're set aside until a data specialist can be contracted. Swiping away with credit cards, Registering An Account with every site and service under the sun, internet-of-things and cloud, yadda yadda yadda.

"I feel violated" "I'm embarrassed"

Then boy do you have a lot of on-going behaviors to correct.

GP's point is valid

[rsilvergun]

This is another example of Uber exercising the kind of control over it's "contractors" that would normally be reserved for employees.

Re:GP's point is valid

[Richard_at_work]

A company doesn't have the power to stop working with individual contractors...? Since when did that happen?

Re:GP's point is valid

[mukinrestak]

You think one party consent laws are shitty? Report back after you've been prosecuted for recording a verbal contract a motherfucker tried to skip out on.

One party consent, despite its downsides, is still superior to two party consent laws.

Re:GP's point is valid

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree with your statement in general - the idea that I can record a conversation with someone who I'm worried about a future lawsuit or dispute is enormously comforting - but there's no way in hell one party consent should result in the ability of someone to PUBLISH WIDELY said recording or take such recordings and use it for commercial or personal gain. It's the difference between a photo of a public square that happens to have people on it, and making a video for a TV show and not getting a consent form for the commercial use.

Re: GP's point is valid

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I imagine the US would be similar. If you recorded a murderer murdering or something, then used it in court as evidence, I am sure it would not be thrown out as evidence, even if it was just 1 party consent.

It certainly would be thrown out if it showed, for example, a cop shooting a defenseless black citizen to death. A lot of cops really don't like their interactions being legally recorded, let-alone illegally recorded.

Re:GP's point is valid

[pots]

"Before you say anything, you need to be aware that I am recording this conversation for the purpose of keeping a log of our transaction. I can send a copy afterwards if you'd like."

Yes, I think one party consent laws are shitty. It's not a high barrier to be a decent person here, it's harder to set up a recording device than it is to tell someone that they're being recorded.

Re: GP's point is valid

[ememisya]

This kind of fellow is increasingly more common and can be found in the corners of many college campuses today. For some reason people in their early 20s love to live stream their neighbors, roommates, basically other people just living their lives. These people were referred to as serial killers in the 80s, but we call them content streamers nowadays. Most of them have an unhealthy relationship with GTA V, and I have personally spoken to 3 who fit the profile perfectly. One of whom is not a college student which lead me to believe it's a cultural movement. I see it as something Internet privacy issues brought us where these young fellows simply decided, who gives a damn (perhaps demonstrating a subliminal rebellion) and are literally filming strangers like it's a BBC documentary. It makes them feel empowered from what I can tell, and it's a bonding experience in their group. Yes, it's our fault. Specifically the fault of military and law enforcement taking the privacy battle all the way to an Orvellian reality exposed by whistleblowers. "The Internet troll" is a real life personality now as opposed to being an Internet alter-ego. We'll now just have to deal with it. That's another thing these groups say, "Deal with it." Also "U mad bro?"

Re:GP's point is valid

[amorsen]

It's all confused.

Of course one party consent should be enough for recording an actual conversation that they're taking part in.

Publishing said conversation (as opposed to e.g. handing it over to the police) is an entirely different matter, and likely should not be generally permitted.

Recording a conversation that they are NOT part of, like a driver recording passengers, should obviously not be allowed without at least implicit consent (i.e. prominent warning labels)

Is it legal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why would one party consent make it legal??

Isn't one party consent for audio recordings? Aren't video recordings covered under different laws? And, while recording may be legal, isn't publication covered under a variety of different laws?

Re:Is it legal?

[datavirtue]

Why would something as abstract as law differentiate between audio or video? That's dumb.

Re:Is it legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is one party consent to make the recording. publishing it might be a whole other matter, and under different laws.

Re:Is it legal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's dumb, but true in other states and other situations. It came up a lot with filming officer a few years ago.

IANAL, but I know that there are distinctions in at least some areas for some uses.

Re:Is it legal?

[MDMurphy]

Differentiating between audio and video recordings make silent video security cameras legal. An area that requires 2 party consent would not be able to record audio with video, but could record video only ( unless there's another law for that )

I suspect there are many 1000s of businesses in Missouri that have legal audio and video recordings, probably some taxis too, while in other areas video only is quite common.

It would be bad for business though if every bar live streamed their security video, with or without audio, even if it were legal.

Re:Is it legal?

[Powercntrl]

Why would one party consent make it legal??

Because the assumption is driver of the vehicle can hear and see everything you're doing, so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy to begin with.

Re:Is it legal?

[omnichad]

The broadcasting should have an effect and is the make factor vs. being simply recorded. They would have to get a model release form or similar. In Missouri, you do have a right of publicity, meaning that using your likeness for commercial purposes or for ad revenue requires consent. In addition, you have the legal right to protect you against publishing of private facts (eg personal conversations in a car).

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...

Re:Is it legal?

[omnichad]

There are usually exceptions to privacy laws for reporting on the news. Otherwise, recording can be fine even if broadcasting or sharing it is not.

Re:Is it legal?

[Hognoxious]

Actually making a statement about what is or isn't actually legal without an actual geographic reference is actually quite stupid.

Re:Is it legal?

[Hognoxious]

I think some of these laws date back to the days of copper wire telephones, i.e. video wasn't really a thing[1].

That's why you hear phrases like "illegal wiretap" where there's no wire being tapped.

[1] Before any aspie mentions movie cameras, those were so big that anyone being filmed would know about it.

Re:should use it as a feature

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

He should have used the internet model. Leave a tiny label on the bottom of the back seat that says "Terms of Service are posted in the glove compartment, by sitting in the seat you agree to them".

Reasonable expectation

[spinitch]

The driver was somewhat obvious in ability to eventually detect his undesirable behavior and challenge. Not so much for the big Corp's. In the public should have reasonable expectation you could be recorded which generally offers security too. Now folks need to ask like the urban legend "are you a cop?" Question as are you recording me and get it documented. Have a note pad or video from your phone. The driver should be able to decline being videotaped too thus a paper confirm as alternative. Drive recorders are useful for driving safety.

Re:Shame

[dj245]

That’s a shameful behavior. Is there a link to the videos?

The real shameful thing here is that this guy seems to have an unlimited and uncapped data plan. Where do I sign up for that?

this guy is smart to record

[Anonymous Coward]

https://nypost.com/2017/04/05/passenger-from-hell-threatens-to-accuse-uber-driver-of-rape/

An enraged Bronx woman threatened to falsely accuse an Uber driver of rape and assault — after he told her he didn’t have a charger for her phone, footage shows.
“I’m going to start screaming out the window that you’re raping me, that you raped me,” the female passenger can be heard saying in a dashcam video posted by LiveLeak.
“I will punch myself in the face and tell the cops you did it,” she adds. “You wanna play?”
The incident is said to have occurred Monday in the Bronx, according to the video-sharing website.
The woman also hurled racial expletives at the driver and told him to “go back to your country.”
“Donald Trump going to send you and your family back,” she seethes. “Get the f–k out of my country.”

I'd hate to think how much trouble this guy would be in if he didn't record video and audio to prove how crazy the woman was.

Re:this guy is smart to record

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of BS in this thread .. Issue wasn't recording, it's that in this case the driver was _streaming_, live.

Re:this guy is smart to record

[Anonymous Coward]

https://nypost.com/2017/04/05/passenger-from-hell-threatens-to-accuse-uber-driver-of-rape/

An enraged Bronx woman threatened to falsely accuse an Uber driver of rape and assault — after he told her he didn’t have a charger for her phone, footage shows.
“I’m going to start screaming out the window that you’re raping me, that you raped me,” the female passenger can be heard saying in a dashcam video posted by LiveLeak.
“I will punch myself in the face and tell the cops you did it,” she adds. “You wanna play?”
The incident is said to have occurred Monday in the Bronx, according to the video-sharing website.
The woman also hurled racial expletives at the driver and told him to “go back to your country.”
“Donald Trump going to send you and your family back,” she seethes. “Get the f–k out of my country.”

I'd hate to think how much trouble this guy would be in if he didn't record video and audio to prove how crazy the woman was.

This is a good example of why people should be allowed to record for security and lawsuit reasons in businesses. Especially one-on-one situations such as in cabs, ubers, or brothels
But what needs to be heavily regulated is the publication of recordings.

Re:Dejavu...

[Powercntrl]

Driving while streaming in particular is extremely dangerous.

I'm assuming if the passengers didn't notice the camera, it wasn't in any sort of location which would provide a distraction to the driver.

What if they officially added cams?

[antdude]

Like police cars, public transportations (e.g., buses), etc. Don't taxis have them too now?

Guy thinks he's a corporation

[burningcpu]

But a corporation isn't liable to get his ass beat by pissed off 'customers.' Like, these are his neighbors, and I'm sure someone's going to want revenge.

Legality depends on the application of recording

[Applehu Akbar]

I can envision a driver recording each working day purely as a security measure and then recycling the tape each day. Being unwittingly given a supporting role in his podcast is another matter. It's commercial use of your image without permission. Any commercial street photographer requires model releases for people who are in a picture for sale.

Not if he made money

[Solandri]

If he was monetizing his streams, then he needs to get model releases signed by everyone appearing in his streams. Otherwise he's violating the personality rights (right to control how one's image is used) of the passengers. Even if he didn't make money, publishing and distributing video with the intent to spread it far and wide (i.e. not just for your cousin Billy to view) typically requires model releases. If he doesn't have signed releases, these people can sue him for a piece of anything he gained, which arguably could be extended to income he made from Uber/Lyft.

It's the same reason why reality TV shows blur out the faces of people in the background (they couldn't chase them down to get model releases signed). News reporting usually gets a waiver because freedom of the press supersedes personality rights if broadcasting the image is necessary or incidental to coverage of a newsworthy event.

In other words, he's deeply and truly screwed. Doubly so since that he's admitted he's deleting the videos - that now constitutes destruction of evidence. (Evidence victims could use to validate that their rights were violated, and that he owes them damages.)

Re:Jail time needed ASAP ! Please help lawyers get

[Archangel Michael]

I'm pretty sure that just because you're outraged doesn't mean there is a law against doing something. In fact, I would suggest that you fall into the stupid category of thinking your emotions are all that are required for something to be "legal" or "illegal". Thankfully for you, emotions don't count, otherwise I WOULD BE OUTRAGED BY YOU AND YOU SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND SENT TO JAIL AND ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER AC ON SLASHDOT!!!!!!

You're welcome.

Re:Shame

[ls671]

He streams it "live" when he gets home. More precisely, there is always a one day delay on his stream. He just queues videos and they go live in a way similar to how Slashdot articles do.

Re: But itâ(TM)s legal

[edris90]

That's passive aggressive. You could do better

Not the only place it's happening.

[user no. 590291]

Ran across a YouTube channel where a driver in a mid-sized U.S. city has been surreptitiously recording passengers and posting on a (presumably monetized) channel. Driver uberBeardedman616 is even so bold as to include his driver referral link.

Re:Legal so no problem

[ebvwfbw]

Laws may be different where you are. Check with a lawyer first. Legal advice is always cheaper before you violate the law.