Even better is Uber can identify these fares, and, if they wanted to, could report suspicious fares to authorities, who could follow up. Not that Uber is required to, but they have the data to ferret out these 'salespeople'.
If I were the cops, I'd have Uber and Lyft collect data and I'd have some computer scientists develop algorithms for identifying such use patterns, then use this to identify people who are manning the distribution networks. (Then use this data not to arrest the small fry but to help identify people further up the chain.)
On the cautionary flip side: Uber and Lyft data could be used in this way to determine sub-cultural, religious, and political affiliations. Access to such such data would entail tremendous power in terms of surveillance. (The same goes for the real-time data Tesla collects.) We should perhaps think about legal protections on such data.
If the data exists, then it will be abused, simple as that. There are no legal protections to be had when intelligence agencies are given a carte blanche to spy on their own taxpayers and do whatever they want. And so I think Uber and Lyft should be banned from storing such data.
I would rather that individuals be enabled to use DRM, but in the direction that makes sense. It shouldn't be used by centralized organizations against individuals. It should be used by distributed individuals against centralized power. Individuals should be empowered to restrict access to their personal information, or to delete it.
If the government can restrict Uber and Lyft from storing data, what's to stop them from restricting individuals? (The usual pattern in the US is to have exceedingly restrictive laws that the authorities can selectively enforce.)
You're assuming DRM is actually possible and so even justifiable, but DRM is fundamentally broken.
> If the government can restrict Uber and Lyft from storing data, what's to stop them from restricting individuals?
Data that can identify other people and break their privacy? Yes, please restrict individuals as well. Privacy is surely going to be the battle of the next century, if we don't nuke ourselves from orbit or destroy earth until then.
You're assuming DRM is actually possible and so even justifiable, but DRM is fundamentally broken.
It is -- when used by centralized authorities, it certainly is. The hacking expertise that can be mustered by the internet at large will always beat whatever a single corporation or even government can manage. However, this is precisely why it would be very usable by the public against centralized organizations.
Yes, please restrict individuals as well.
Ensuring the freedom of individuals should be the whole point of society and government. This is also why privacy is important.
No, you don't get it. DRM is fundamentally flawed from a technical perspective. DRM can never work without coercing people into compliance by means of force, threats and punishment.
Also society doesn't have a point or purpose, society being basically what happens when you get a bunch of people together. And if governments have a purpose, that would be ensuring the well-being of the citizens by proper usage of force. As a society we've decided that this means protecting the rights of individuals.
But what "freedom" are you talking about exactly? We've clearly decided as a society that murdering other people or having slaves aren't freedoms worth protecting.
No, you don't get it. DRM is fundamentally flawed from a technical perspective. DRM can never work without coercing people into compliance by means of force, threats and punishment.
No, you don't get it. DRM is economically flawed because of asymmetries in power/aggregate power controlled by individuals vs. centralized organizations. DRM on behalf of individuals can work by coercing corporations into compliance by means of regulations, threats, and punishment.
The exact things that make DRM bad when used by corporations make it potentially very good when used by individuals against corporations. It is basically the same privacy vs. openness arrow between individuals vs. corporations. It's a public good for individuals to have privacy and corporations to be open and transparent. It's horrible the other way around. Likewise, it's a public good for individuals to have DRM to protect their data against corporations. It's horrible the other way around.
The difference in association patterns between "Fellows of the Water Buffalo Lodge" and "Drug dealers and their clients" is probably not one that is trivially solvable by algorithm. There's plenty of good reasons that someone could want to make a bunch of short stops along a circuitous route - Not the least of which is commerce of precisely the same nature, but with legal substances. I know somebody who bakes cookies, sells them online through facebook, and takes uber to make her deliveries. It's precisely the same scenario, but nothing illicit is going on. How would an algorithm distinguish?
I had a trip on Lyft that was almost certainly a drug deal. Picked up a woman at the holiday inn near fisherman's be wharf, drove down to the tl, circled two blocks, another person got in, drove back to fisherman's wharf. I only realized what had happened later that day, or I would have called it in to ban the passenger (Lyft has a zero tolerance drug policy).
Why people use the taxi is their business. All innovations including cellphones, automobiles, internet etc. etc. must have helped drug dealing and other illegal stuff.
This is a non-story, the real story is when autonomous vehicles deliver and distribute drugs, since auto-pilot, ability to lock and unlock cars from whole another city etc. I would be surprised if the Cartels do not employ autonomous fleet for their distribution.
This is classic Vice journalism of turning a non-story into a puffed up scare-piece all for a sexy, sharable title. I would really like to see less of their poor excuse for journalism (Motherboard included) on HackerNews because links like these really bring down overall quality. In the HN guidelines, the site lays out a call for stories that go beyond superficially interesting and provoke something deeper. Vice content rarely does this, and when it does, it is often built on the back of sensationalism or shoddy journalistic integrity.
21 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 67.9 ms ] threadOn the cautionary flip side: Uber and Lyft data could be used in this way to determine sub-cultural, religious, and political affiliations. Access to such such data would entail tremendous power in terms of surveillance. (The same goes for the real-time data Tesla collects.) We should perhaps think about legal protections on such data.
If the government can restrict Uber and Lyft from storing data, what's to stop them from restricting individuals? (The usual pattern in the US is to have exceedingly restrictive laws that the authorities can selectively enforce.)
> If the government can restrict Uber and Lyft from storing data, what's to stop them from restricting individuals?
Data that can identify other people and break their privacy? Yes, please restrict individuals as well. Privacy is surely going to be the battle of the next century, if we don't nuke ourselves from orbit or destroy earth until then.
It is -- when used by centralized authorities, it certainly is. The hacking expertise that can be mustered by the internet at large will always beat whatever a single corporation or even government can manage. However, this is precisely why it would be very usable by the public against centralized organizations.
Yes, please restrict individuals as well.
Ensuring the freedom of individuals should be the whole point of society and government. This is also why privacy is important.
Also society doesn't have a point or purpose, society being basically what happens when you get a bunch of people together. And if governments have a purpose, that would be ensuring the well-being of the citizens by proper usage of force. As a society we've decided that this means protecting the rights of individuals.
But what "freedom" are you talking about exactly? We've clearly decided as a society that murdering other people or having slaves aren't freedoms worth protecting.
No, you don't get it. DRM is economically flawed because of asymmetries in power/aggregate power controlled by individuals vs. centralized organizations. DRM on behalf of individuals can work by coercing corporations into compliance by means of regulations, threats, and punishment.
The exact things that make DRM bad when used by corporations make it potentially very good when used by individuals against corporations. It is basically the same privacy vs. openness arrow between individuals vs. corporations. It's a public good for individuals to have privacy and corporations to be open and transparent. It's horrible the other way around. Likewise, it's a public good for individuals to have DRM to protect their data against corporations. It's horrible the other way around.
With taxis and other livery drivers, the driver does not personally own the vehicle.
Seems like quite a risk for any Uber/Lyft driver.
I usually love Vice, but this is nonsense.