- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- boycottus@lemmy.ca
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/28209968
Anvi Ahuja received a text message transcript of her conversation with her roommates during their Lyft ride home on March 11.
The company confirms the incident took place, but has offered varying explanations.
After CBC Toronto contacted Lyft about this story last week, a Lyft representative called Ahuja. She says they told her the company is running a pilot program where audio is recorded from some rides and then the transcript is supposed to be sent to the ride-sharing company for reference if a security issue is reported.
In a statement to CBC, a Lyft spokesperson acknowledged that the ride-sharing company has an in-app audio recording pilot in select U.S. markets with “strict opt-in protocols” but said this incident is not related to that pilot program or any other feature being tested by Lyft.
You must log in or register to comment.
[Commenting instead of editing the post]
The only reason we know this is happening, is because Lyft fucked up once by sending her the transcript. Assume it’s happening in every vehicle.
The personal responsibility/choice narrative silicon valley loves so much when it comes to deregulation of labour standards and constant aggressive privacy violations is not useful irl. Any gig worker for lyft/uber/fuckworkers.com isn’t going to feel free to say no (if they have any choice at all) and putting the onus on riders doesn’t make sense here at all.
Canada has privacy laws that techbro companies from the USA simply ignore. Now is the best time to start enforcing them.
Canada has single-party consent laws when it comes to audio recording.
I hate this use and that I’m arguing devils advocate here, but legally speaking; If the driver opted-in to the program, audio in the vehicle can legally be recorded because the driver is considered a party to the conversion that’s happening within their vehicle (even without actively participating in that conversion). They can record and distribute that recording however they like (including to lyft to be transcribed).
Lyft wouldn’t be able to record vehicle audio without the consent of the driver at the minimum; but they aren’t necessarily required to gain consent or even inform the other passengers. As shitty as that is.
Don’t treat your driver like they don’t exist and keep private conversations for when your actually in private. Even a regular cab driver could be privately recording you; regardless of ‘company policy’.
Another way to think of this is: You can record the audio in your immediate vicinity (ie, anything you can naturally hear) without having to gain consent from or inform everyone around you. Same concept.
Don’t you have to be participating in the conversation? Our state’ single party consent specifically excludes “walk ups” and “back grounders”. For instance a waiter at a restaurant cannot record a table’s conversation just because he said a few words. Also a person cannot say “hello” and then quietly sit by and record you.
The person doing the recording must be an active and constant participant in the conversation, otherwise the recording is illegal.
In a situation like this; you’ve entered the drivers vehicle and began a conversation in their immediate presence fully aware that they are able to hear and listen to you. That makes the driver a party to your conversation, even without actively participating in it.
Not in my state, and not by most two party laws. This is VERY specific and clear in my state: The driver is outside the conversation.
By your rational a police agent without a warrant could walk by and say “hello”, plant a listening device, then record your conversation because he said hello at the start. This is specifically not two party (I spot checked several state laws). It would be illegal in many states (mine included).
By your rational a police agent without a warrant could walk by and say “hello”, plant a listening device, then record your conversation because he said hello at the start.
No. In that situation a third party inserted themselves into your conversation entirely of their own volition.
This is like you walking up to someone that’s streaming/vlogging in public, beginning an unrelated conversation in front of them; then you getting upset that they are recording the conversation that you began in their presence. Even if you weren’t aware they were streaming; you were the one that inserted yourself into that situation. They didn’t walk up to/join you; you made them a party by bringing the conversation to them.
A really big part of these types of legal situations is ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. The people inside a vehicle are all pretty close together and obviously going to be able to hear the conversions that are happening. It’s unreasonable to expect the driver who’s head is ~3 feet from you isn’t privy to your conversation.
Hearing a conversation and recording it are two different things. Single party consent means one of the people being recorded must give permission to record … full stop. If there is no consent then a warrant is required.
Single party consent means one of the people being recorded must give permission to record … full stop.
This is true.
What you don’t understand is that a person does not have to be actively speaking or being directly spoken to in order to be a part of a conversation. Simply being present, with the other participants fully aware of your presence while continuing to converse makes you part of their conversation and thus a party able to consent to it’s recording.
The key there is that the other participants are aware of your presence. You’re not hiding around a corner, listening in unbeknownst to them; the people conversing are entirely aware that you are present and likely listening.
My state takes it a step further. You must be a consistent active participant in the conversation. The driver of a vehicle you are riding in likely would not qualify as he is not there as part of the conversation. There is no way possible that having every conversation in a car automatically recorded would be legal in my state.
Biological memory is a way of recording information. With your logic Im not allowed to speak on telephone with someone recording our conversation (such as companies or government agencies) outside in my yard because their recording might pick up someone unrelated speaking
This is actually a correct assessment for the state I live in
Picking up someone’s conversation by accident like this is 100% inadmissible in court. It is also likely to get whomever is trying to utilize the recording sued.
Filming an interaction is different, that is where the expectation of privacy standard occurs.
Wire tapping went a bit crazy for a while there and needed to be made illegal/inadmissible.
This is a lesson to go through your app permissions to see what has access to your mic or camera and turn off those permissions which you don’t want it to have.
It wasn’t her phone that did it:
“Some sort of recording software was used in the car — that in itself is a breach of my privacy,” she said.
The lesson is to avoid these services if possible or communicate sensitive info silently/by text when you’re not in a trusted vehicle.
Ahh so it was the Lyft operators phone recording.
Or it was included (correctly or incorrectly) as part of Lyft’s test program where they record audio, and they’re lying.
If drivers opt-in to it, they should make it SOP to inform the rider at the beginning of the ride that they are being recorded.
That seems to be SOP for Uber. They flat out say that you may be recorded on rides, presumably for safety reasons.
