So thoughtful. Uber says it won't track you after you leave their vehicles

Company again reminded of difference between 'we can do this' and 'we should do this'

Amid heavy criticism over how it handles user privacy, Uber has agreed to not track riders after their trips end.

The ride-hailing company has infamously faced legal suits on previous occasions over privacy issues, including software for tracking high-profile individuals, the acquaintances of Uber employees and even drivers working for one of their competitors, Lyft.

Uber claims it's made inroads on privacy since those days, for example by making some controls more transparent. In November, however, it tweaked the location data it collects in a move privacy groups such as EFF called "disappointing".

Riders with iOS and Android devices use location services to automatically determine their starting positions: without them they'd have to input pickup spots manually every time. Previously, they could opt to only share their device's location data while en route, but the controversial November update allowed the company to continue tracking for up to five minutes after they were dropped off. Either they disabled location services or enabled it and got followed.

Uber argued it collected the additional data to improve the experience for riders, such as safety, checking for busy roads or better estimating arrival times. Now, though, it's walking back on the update.

A spokesperson told The Register today that based on feedback from users, it is getting rid of the five minute permissions on Android and iOS in "the coming weeks". It is also reviving the "while using" location sharing setting for iOS.

To settle a court case with the US Federal Trade Commission for mishandling driver and passenger personal info, earlier this month Uber also agreed to twenty years of audits and promised to start a new privacy programme.

"There are still questions about how Uber uses its customers’ data, [but] the removal of post-journey tracking is very welcome," a spokeswoman for the UK-based free speech and digital privacy advocacy Open Rights Group told The Register via email.

"Hopefully, this will send a message to other companies that customers don’t like being tracked without their consent," she added. ®

Narrower topics

Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022