Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Software Technology

Uber Drivers To Launch Legal Bid To Uncover App's Algorithm (theguardian.com) 31

Posted by BeauHD from the open-sesame dept.
AmiMoJo shares a report from The Guardian: Minicab drivers will launch a legal bid to uncover secret computer algorithms used by Uber to manage their work in a test case that could increase transparency for millions of gig economy workers across Europe. Two UK drivers are demanding to see the huge amounts of data the ride-sharing company collects on them and how this is used to exert management control, including through automated decision-making that invisibly shapes their jobs. The case is being brought on Monday by the UK-based App Drivers and Couriers Union in the district court in Amsterdam, where the international headquarters of the $56 billion ride-hailing firm is located. The union said transparency was essential in checking if Uber was exercising discrimination or unequal treatment between drivers. It will also allow drivers to organize and build collective bargaining power over terms of work and pay in a way that is currently impossible.

The claim says Uber uses tags on drivers' profiles, for example "inappropriate behavior" or simply "police tag." Reports relate to "navigation -- late arrival / missed ETA" and "professionalism -- cancelled on rider, inappropriate behavior, attitude." The drivers complain they were not being provided with this data or information on the underlying logic of how it was used. They want to how that processing affects them, including on their driver score. The union members Azeem Hanif and Alfie Wellcoat claim Uber has failed to fulfill its obligations in its response to their requests under general data protection regulations (GDPR). They want to see their detailed driver profiles, comments about them made by Uber staff and how more than two dozen categories of data gathered about them are processed, legal papers show. A spokesperson for Uber said: "Our privacy team works hard to provide any requested personal data that individuals are entitled to. We will give explanations when we cannot provide certain data, such as when it doesn't exist or disclosing it would infringe on the rights of another person under GDPR. Under the law, individuals have the right to escalate their concerns by contacting Uber's data protection officer or their national data protection authority for additional review."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Drivers To Launch Legal Bid To Uncover App's Algorithm More

Uber Drivers To Launch Legal Bid To Uncover App's Algorithm

Comments Filter:

  • Legal basis (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @05:29AM (#60314061) Homepage Journal

    Just to provide some background my understanding of the legal basis here is that employers have to be transparent with staff about how decisions affecting them are made and how their performance is measured. That includes decisions made by algorithm.

    • They arenâ(TM)t staff, they are contractors and neither gets a say into how the bosses make their decisions.

      The answer would be: we believe we make the best decision for the individual concerned and the company, the special sauce requested is a trade secret and this employee is not authorized to know our trade secrets in his current position.

      • Re: Legal basis (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @07:30AM (#60314275) Homepage Journal

        In the UK they are employees with employee rights.

        The test to see if someone is an employee is generally along the lines of if the person they work for controls when they work and assigns work to them directly, like a line manager. Uber clearly does that by allocating jobs with its app.

        You are correct that the employee does not get a say in how bosses make decisions, but they are entitled to know how decisions are made and challenge them if they break other employment laws. It's all part of the protections against secret lists and covering up unfair/constructive dismissal that was so rampant in the past.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Although I agree with specific protections against blacklists and unfair dismissals, those are singular actions affecting a single person, not line of duty kind of decisions. You can indeed complain that a particular decision is bad or unfair but that doesn't give you a carte blanche to just get a copy of the code the backend uses.

        • The test to see if someone is an employee is generally along the lines of if the person they work for controls when they work and assigns work to them directly, like a line manager. Uber clearly does that by allocating jobs with its app.

          No they don't. The entire reason why the inner workings of the algorithm is hidden from Uber drivers is because the drivers have exploited it in the past. They would clock out en masse making it look as if there were fewer drivers. The algorithm would then increase the fa

          • They would clock out en masse making it look as if there were fewer drivers. The algorithm would then increase the fares to try to attract more drivers. Then they would all clock in to take advantage of the higher fares. There's an inevitable lag between when the algorithm gets new changed input data (like average number of drivers working) and when it can respond to that changed input by adjusting the fares.

            Then that's Uber's problem for having such a stupid algorithm. It is obvious that they hide malfeasance with their secret algorithm. Even if driver's don't have the right to know, the government certainly does. It is obvious that their algorithm (and Postmates and others) rip off drivers as a matter of course, and illegally so. The only reason they are able to get away with it is by keeping it secret. Put another way, if a person was making those decisions the way their algorithm is, they'd be guilty of cr

      • Oh brother, when are we going to start believing that anyone can do anything they want in this world? Some jobs are all some people have left, this is one of them.

    • We are talking about the GDPR here. Assuming that the people involved are EU citizens, it does not make any difference who the entity is that has the data. *Any* entity that is storing or processing data that can be attributed to an individual EU citizen must be able by law to provide all information that is stored or processed regarding that citizen in a human readable form for at most a nominal fee (I believe â 25 max) . So the legal relation between you or where the entity is located does not matte

    • No, they don't. There is no legal leg to stand on here. If the drivers don't like it, they don't have to use it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That's now how employment works in the UK. The employer takes on certain responsibilities.

    • This is actually very reasonable. I judge should force them to make this information available to the drivers. Actually, this should just be information that is available for any potential drives so they know how they will be measured and what they need to do.

  • It is a sure way for them to game the system. In Ontario Canada politicians will often tell hospitals they are going to be measured on how long a wait is for procedure X. Then suddenly the wait for X decreases. Of coarse the wait for everything not related to X increases.
    • I disagree. Tell them how they are measured. But then make sure you are measuring the right things. In your example, that is the fault of those doing the measuring for only measuring the wait for X, instead of the wait for all time relevant procedures.

      If you do not tell them how they are being measured, then you are making them guess what it is you want. It is up to you to build the algorithm correctly to achieve your goals.

  • Which means people may know the inputs and the outputs, but not the algorithms.... so this is basically a frivolous waste of time and money.
  • As much as I dislike the "we are not a cab company" cab company business model, I think Uber has no statutory requirement to disclose how they partition work--regardless of whether the drivers are contractors or employees. That said, transparency is generally a good idea (dumbfuckery thrives in the darkness).
  • the secret ingredient is: rand()

    • Second the motion...UBER taxi app definitely mixes it up on Drivers. However, the data stream algorithmically modifies set pieces in REALITY on-the-ground to favor UBER's preferences set.

      Two tier nature of the UBER prefs abstracted over Driver data moats their QoS scheme that Driver experience as discrimination. Driver discrimination looks like UBER sending in its own fleet of preferred drivers it wants continuously taxi-ing. This is highlighted when a driver knows/finds/discovers a recurring set of ride

  • They have a right to know how the algorithms are affecting their work and income and to be able to adjust accordingly. I think they have a good case and will probably win it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nkwe ( 604125 )

      They have a right to know how the algorithms are affecting their work and income and to be able to adjust accordingly. I think they have a good case and will probably win it.

      Where does this right come from legally? I get that as an employee it would be nice to know and emotionally it feels like Uber drivers should know the rules by which they are rated, but do they actually have a legal right? If so, under what law?

      • They have a right to know how the algorithms are affecting their work and income and to be able to adjust accordingly. I think they have a good case and will probably win it.

        Where does this right come from legally? I get that as an employee it would be nice to know and emotionally it feels like Uber drivers should know the rules by which they are rated, but do they actually have a legal right? If so, under what law?

        If you read the article, it says GDPR. Also they seem to be working an equalities angle.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close