L.A. Suspends Uber's Permit To Rent Out Electric Scooters and Bikes (latimes.com) 33
Following months of conflict over a controversial data-sharing policy, Los Angeles has temporarily suspended Uber's permit to rent electric scooters and bicycles on city streets and sidewalks. From a report: The company's subsidiary, Jump, must appeal the decision by Friday or leave the city, the Transportation Department told the company in a letter last week. For now, customers can still rent the vivid red scooters and electric bikes through the Jump app. In response, Uber threatened in a letter to sue the city over the "patently unfair and improper" suspension. The letter also questioned the validity of the "eleventh-hour administrative review process" that the city created last month. "Every other company that is permitted in Los Angeles is following the rules," said Transportation Department spokeswoman Connie Llanos. "We look forward to being able to work with Uber on getting them into compliance." The suspension follows months of tension and failed attempts at compromise between Uber and the city over a data-sharing rule in L.A.'s one-year pilot permit program. Companies are required to transmit real-time data on all trips made within the city, including the start point, end point and travel time.
Not a problem (Score:3)
A few "donations" to a few political campaigns will solve the issue nicely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If Uber collects this data, what's wrong with the city also having it?
Uber doesn't employ armed thugs, eminent domain (Score:4, Insightful)
The government has a full-time army of armed officers to go around forcing people to do things. The city can take your house and sell it to the highest bidder under eminent domain.
Uber offers scooters for rent.
Are you starting to see the difference between Uber and the government now?
Re: (Score:2)
Uber offers scooters for rent.
I think you need to brush up on this "Uber" company. Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
Lol that too (Score:2)
That's funny. Yeah rides in cars too.
If the government wants to take you for a ride ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
that is so wrong
Only if the same rules aren't applied to all commercial vehicles. It is long past time to put Uber in its place. They have too much influence in the rule making process.
Re: (Score:1)
Is this required of car rental companies? Its not.
Is this required of bike rental companies? Its not.
Thats the most similar commercial businesses. Rent a car or bike, vs rent a scooter.
LA wants the data because it exists in this case, not because its standard for them to get it, as it doesnt exist in the other cases.
Re: (Score:1)
That's ok. If the data exists, the city is entitled to it in exchange for the operating permits.
And who's to say the car rental companies aren't also collecting data on their vehicles?
Re: (Score:2)
and what will the city do with it? who will they share it with?
Re: (Score:1)
We have to make them share it with all that want it. And they have to use the data to make improvements for traffic flow, safety, etc. There are many uses that will benefit all of us, if we make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they just expect to be able to dump their vehicles anywhere with free parking, take up footpath space and create huge risk for pedestrians. So no screw Uber and the other arsehole companies doing this, and local governments should grab those dumped vehicles and confiscate them as litter and then auction them off. They do no belong on footpaths at all.
Re:really? privacy not allowed in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
If the city just wants to know generic data about the trip and not _any_ personal data i don't see the harm. If you're involved in some kind of crime the city will still need to subpoena Uber or whoever to get your personal details (though if you're committing some kind of crime why are you using a rental vehicle that's definitely being tracked?)
Yes, they could probably identify with a reasonable level of confidence that a particular trip was you if it goes from your home to your place of work or some other place you regularly go. But the reason that's damaging for things like cellphones is that you can then connect that data to other places the same phone went. For a rental scooter there's no particular reason to believe that a trip taken by that same scooter later in the day was the same person, or that a trip leaving from the same starting address to a different destination was the same person.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine if it's for a one year pilot program the intent of the data is most likely to understand the service and it's impact on the transportation needs of the city. You know so they can plan for the future, make the tax payers happy, get re-elected, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
> and not _any_ personal data
Non-personal data like the fact that someone rents a scooter near your house and rides it to the place where you work every morning, and then back again every evening? Except on Thursday evenings, when instead someone rents a scooter near your work and rides it to the red light district?
I'm not a fan of Uber, but location data on transportation can be de-anonymized fairly easily.
On the other hand, if LA were just asking for information on when and where scooters were parked,
Re: (Score:3)
What's the privacy issue if there's no personally identifying information?
Start point, end point, and travel time just say where a device is being used and how long it was being used. It doesn't say by whom. It doesn't say for what purpose. Really, the only thing you can do with this data is plan to improve bicycle facilities/amenities along highly trafficked areas.
Uber, on the other hand, has your start/stop location, your travel time, AND your personally identifying information-- and probably some other s
Re:really? privacy not allowed in LA (Score:4, Informative)
Because transportation data *is* personally identifiable data. There's a very small number of people who will ride a scooter between your house and your job every day. And when the return trip doesn't happen, but a trip to from your job to the red light district or a pro-Trump rally does, it's a pretty small leap to decide what you were doing that evening.
The entire concept of "not personally identifiable" data is in many ways a relic of the past. With "Big Data" analyzing and cross-referencing everything it can get its hands on, even de-anonymizing intentionally anonymized data is typically quite easy. In fact it seems like we have an article posted here of a demonstration that fact at least monthly.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that massively aggregated and associated data can be personally identifiable, but the City of LA is in no realistic position to do that with the data they're asking Uber to provide. I think people give city governments (and their transportation analysts) too much credit when it comes to ulterior motives.
Chances are that they're pissed that (1) Uber isn't following through on commitments and (2) they can't support the time/effort/money they've spent to support these -share products with real numbers
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about motives - you're probably right about those. It's about setting a precedent that there's nothing wrong with collecting that data. Because once such data collection is commonplace, eventual abuse is inevitable. The best time to protest government overreach is before it happens - rolling it back is generally *far* more difficult.
There's also the fact that while they may not currently have the skills necessary to extract easily-abused information, they almost certainly don't have the skills n
Re: (Score:2)
You make great points and voice them reasonably. I hope you disagree with me more in the future. (I mean that as a compliment.)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, I try.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes but to be the devil's advocate, identifying individuals from "start point, end point and travel time" is going to take a little more work!
If you're worried about being identified, you might park your scooter where everyone else parks theirs and then walk the short distance to your final destination. It will keep the city cleaner, too.
Re: (Score:1)
People chose to do business with Uber by renting their scooter. They did not choose to do business with the city government of LA by renting Ubers scooter.
Privacy isnt black and white. The people I live with know how often I listen to Natalie Merchant. That doesnt make it open season for the government to know how often I listen to Natalie Merchant.
Re: (Score:2)
They did however choose to do business with the city government of LA when they entered LA, and renewed that choice every moment they choose to remain there. It's not like LA is a separate nation where there can be major bureaucratic difficulties in leaving.
Not that I approve of this surveillance, but pretending that this is about people choosing (or not) to do business with LA is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
''People chose to do business with Uber by renting their scooter. ''
And, by default accepting their TOS. The terms of the service are explicitly explained before you opt to use the service which includes the right of the service to use all your data however they want. I you opt not to agree to their terms of service, simple don't use the service. The fact of the matter is, the service finds the data more valuable than the fees you pay [which probably don't cover the expense of operation].
Re:wow - Uber is doing no evil (Score:5, Insightful)
''I like that Uber is sticking up for privacy''
They're not ''sticking up for privacy'', they're just not willing to make the metrics [their customers grant them rights to use to] available to anyone for free.
They're assholes, but not benevolent by any means.
Uber (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
According to today's release of their financial information, $1.16 billion went down the drain in the third quarter [marketwatch.com] compared to a year ago $986 million.
It is unsurprising the taxi company's CEO said they'll be profitable in 2021, but only for EBIDTA.
Re: (Score:1)
It is unsurprising the taxi company's CEO said they'll be profitable in 2021, but only for EBIDTA.
Why put the "taxi company" there? Does that somehow validate your point that "Uber is bad"? It's a lot easier to take someone seriously when their underlying bias isn't blatantly exposed.