

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Uber's first-ever transparency report, released Tuesday, reveals that in the second half of 2015 alone, the popular ride-sharing app handed over information affecting more than 12 million riders and drivers to a number of U.S. regulators, and shared data about more than 400 users with federal and state law enforcement agencies.
In a blog post, the company said that while it had complied with the majority of law enforcement requests, it also pushed back on the scope of the regulatory inquiries from entities ranging from port officials to taxi commissions to utility regulators:
Of course regulators will always need some amount of data to be effective, just like law enforcement. But in many cases they send blanket requests without explaining why the information is needed, or how it will be used. And while this kind of trip data doesn't include personal information, it can reveal patterns of behavior--and is more than regulators need to do their jobs. It's why Uber frequently tries to narrow the scope of these demands, though our efforts are typically rebuffed.
As Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, told the San Jose Mercury News: "I think it's always concerning when location data and other possibly identifying data is being shared by third parties about you."
Meanwhile, Quartz explained how the revelations raise "real privacy concerns."
"In New York City, for example, the taxi commission periodically releases a summary of the data it collects, and the details could be obtained through a public records request," reporter Alison Griswold wrote. "In theory, an enterprising individual could cross-reference that information against addresses to figure out who's requesting an Uber and when. In cities where Uber is required to provide end-to-end trip data, you could hypothetically track a person's travel."
Uber said it had not received any national security letters or orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act.
But as the Guardian pointed out, its inclusion of that information--a so-called "warrant canary"--could be important in the long run. "Such generally secret government data requests often come with a gag order," the newspaper explained. "If Uber ever does receive such a request in the future it would, in theory, remove the language."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Uber's first-ever transparency report, released Tuesday, reveals that in the second half of 2015 alone, the popular ride-sharing app handed over information affecting more than 12 million riders and drivers to a number of U.S. regulators, and shared data about more than 400 users with federal and state law enforcement agencies.
In a blog post, the company said that while it had complied with the majority of law enforcement requests, it also pushed back on the scope of the regulatory inquiries from entities ranging from port officials to taxi commissions to utility regulators:
Of course regulators will always need some amount of data to be effective, just like law enforcement. But in many cases they send blanket requests without explaining why the information is needed, or how it will be used. And while this kind of trip data doesn't include personal information, it can reveal patterns of behavior--and is more than regulators need to do their jobs. It's why Uber frequently tries to narrow the scope of these demands, though our efforts are typically rebuffed.
As Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, told the San Jose Mercury News: "I think it's always concerning when location data and other possibly identifying data is being shared by third parties about you."
Meanwhile, Quartz explained how the revelations raise "real privacy concerns."
"In New York City, for example, the taxi commission periodically releases a summary of the data it collects, and the details could be obtained through a public records request," reporter Alison Griswold wrote. "In theory, an enterprising individual could cross-reference that information against addresses to figure out who's requesting an Uber and when. In cities where Uber is required to provide end-to-end trip data, you could hypothetically track a person's travel."
Uber said it had not received any national security letters or orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act.
But as the Guardian pointed out, its inclusion of that information--a so-called "warrant canary"--could be important in the long run. "Such generally secret government data requests often come with a gag order," the newspaper explained. "If Uber ever does receive such a request in the future it would, in theory, remove the language."
Uber's first-ever transparency report, released Tuesday, reveals that in the second half of 2015 alone, the popular ride-sharing app handed over information affecting more than 12 million riders and drivers to a number of U.S. regulators, and shared data about more than 400 users with federal and state law enforcement agencies.
In a blog post, the company said that while it had complied with the majority of law enforcement requests, it also pushed back on the scope of the regulatory inquiries from entities ranging from port officials to taxi commissions to utility regulators:
Of course regulators will always need some amount of data to be effective, just like law enforcement. But in many cases they send blanket requests without explaining why the information is needed, or how it will be used. And while this kind of trip data doesn't include personal information, it can reveal patterns of behavior--and is more than regulators need to do their jobs. It's why Uber frequently tries to narrow the scope of these demands, though our efforts are typically rebuffed.
As Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, told the San Jose Mercury News: "I think it's always concerning when location data and other possibly identifying data is being shared by third parties about you."
Meanwhile, Quartz explained how the revelations raise "real privacy concerns."
"In New York City, for example, the taxi commission periodically releases a summary of the data it collects, and the details could be obtained through a public records request," reporter Alison Griswold wrote. "In theory, an enterprising individual could cross-reference that information against addresses to figure out who's requesting an Uber and when. In cities where Uber is required to provide end-to-end trip data, you could hypothetically track a person's travel."
Uber said it had not received any national security letters or orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act.
But as the Guardian pointed out, its inclusion of that information--a so-called "warrant canary"--could be important in the long run. "Such generally secret government data requests often come with a gag order," the newspaper explained. "If Uber ever does receive such a request in the future it would, in theory, remove the language."