The general conversation of the comments here is confusing.
> Companies are required to transmit real-time data on all trips made within the city, including the start point, end point and travel time.
This is not "real-time rider information" as mentioned by many comments, this is 'real-time scooter information'.
> Uber has resisted the rule for months, arguing, with the backing of several data privacy organizations, that the city’s policy constitutes government surveillance. With minimal analysis, they say, the information could easily reveal where people live, work, socialize or worship.
I don't understand. The city should know where you live, you pay taxes and utilities and I'm sure there is a whole mess of bureaucracy that knows where individual names live for different reasons. Are we worried about specific elements within the bureaucracy knowing certain information? Is this information only accessible by monitoring scooters and not available to said entity by getting it through other means (school district zoning and so on)?
> Los Angeles officials have said the data are necessary to figure out which companies are flouting the permit program’s rules, including caps on the number of vehicles and bans on riding in certain areas. They have also argued that the companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
This makes sense, no one would expect a regulation with no ability for the enforcing agent to monitor to be followed.
> Companies such as Uber “generate and collect massive amounts of personal and financial data,” while the city “does not collect information specific to individual riders beyond trip information,” said Marcel Porras, the Transportation Department’s chief sustainability officer, in a letter to Uber last week.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expect from this situation, the whole dog and pony show that these rideshare companies put on seems like a farce.
I'm not happy with municipalities for a whole load of reasons, LA especially has an awful history in many domains. But there is no world in which I trust these rideshare companies MORE than I trust municipalities.
EDIT:
I should add I'm sad that Uber(Jump) get to redefine the data privacy debate via their spokesperson and this journalist. I don't blame the writer, but it is absurd to validate claims like my second except above. I think this is gaslighting? If not, then related. Some PR moves to seed public expectation in this matter. They are implicitly defining this issue as something that is fundamentally different when the data is stored and collected by a corporation (them) to be sold and used however they desire vs utilization by entities in the public sector. I am happy to point people to a fantastic conversation on the "two" definitions of data privacy here:
> Uber has resisted the rule for months, arguing, with the backing of several data privacy organizations, that the city’s policy constitutes government surveillance. With minimal analysis, they say, the information could easily reveal where people live, work, socialize or worship.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Incredible that these companies have the audacity to take that stance.
"It is only we, the technocratic elite, that should be allowed to know where people live, work, socialize or worship, and to use that information to extract even more data and even more profit from these people. The city government should sweep the streets and mind its own business."
I’m confused that HN is suddenly enthralled with giving real time location data to the government. There was actually a recent Supreme Court case that extended Fourth Amendment protections to such data.
> enthralled with giving real time location data to the government
Then I would completely agree with you, but as I point out in the first except of my original comment, this IS NOT the case. Maybe the reporting is wrong, and therefore I'm wrong, but I'm frustrated by the general consensus in this thread being what you just wrote. That is not the situation. And similarly, I'm frustrated by the implicit defense of ride share companies here. As I end my original comment, I distrust both municipalities and these ride share companies. I'm not enthralled by anything here.
> Companies are required to transmit real-time data on all trips made within the city, including the start point, end point and travel time.
This is not "real-time rider information" as mentioned by many comments, this is 'real-time scooter information'.
> Uber has resisted the rule for months, arguing, with the backing of several data privacy organizations, that the city’s policy constitutes government surveillance. With minimal analysis, they say, the information could easily reveal where people live, work, socialize or worship.
I don't understand. The city should know where you live, you pay taxes and utilities and I'm sure there is a whole mess of bureaucracy that knows where individual names live for different reasons. Are we worried about specific elements within the bureaucracy knowing certain information? Is this information only accessible by monitoring scooters and not available to said entity by getting it through other means (school district zoning and so on)?
> Los Angeles officials have said the data are necessary to figure out which companies are flouting the permit program’s rules, including caps on the number of vehicles and bans on riding in certain areas. They have also argued that the companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
This makes sense, no one would expect a regulation with no ability for the enforcing agent to monitor to be followed.
> Companies such as Uber “generate and collect massive amounts of personal and financial data,” while the city “does not collect information specific to individual riders beyond trip information,” said Marcel Porras, the Transportation Department’s chief sustainability officer, in a letter to Uber last week.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expect from this situation, the whole dog and pony show that these rideshare companies put on seems like a farce.
I'm not happy with municipalities for a whole load of reasons, LA especially has an awful history in many domains. But there is no world in which I trust these rideshare companies MORE than I trust municipalities.
EDIT: I should add I'm sad that Uber(Jump) get to redefine the data privacy debate via their spokesperson and this journalist. I don't blame the writer, but it is absurd to validate claims like my second except above. I think this is gaslighting? If not, then related. Some PR moves to seed public expectation in this matter. They are implicitly defining this issue as something that is fundamentally different when the data is stored and collected by a corporation (them) to be sold and used however they desire vs utilization by entities in the public sector. I am happy to point people to a fantastic conversation on the "two" definitions of data privacy here:
https://idlewords.com/talks/senate_testimony.2019.5.htm#two_...