Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
This is another example of Uber exercising the kind of control over it's "contractors" that would normally be reserved for employees.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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".
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.
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.
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.)