Uber-vigilant: Protecting privacy in ride-sharing

2016 has been a year dominated by coverage of leaks, email hacks, and compromised servers. Intrusion, violation, and the continuing retreat of privacy have become dominant themes of our national conversation.

{mosads}Against that backdrop, the ridesharing service Uber has begun to implement a controversial data collection policy. The San Francisco-based company famous for revolutionizing urban transportation and disrupting the cab industry announced that it would begin tracking a user’s location even after he or she has closed the application—for up to five minutes after the end of a ride. Uber would have the ability to monitor where its customers travel following the completion of a trip, even as the application ran only as a background program.

Uber defends this policy as a tool to detect driver fraud and improve location accuracy at popular pickup spots. Naturally, privacy hawks are skeptical, pointing out that Uber has come under attack before for tracking in real-time the locations of particular individuals, and even mapping out their trip histories. The mere creation of this data means that the every movement of Uber users is but a subpoena away from use by the government or in a future judicial proceeding. The security of the information is also a concern, as Uber recently settled with the office of the New York Attorney General following a data breach that went undisclosed to affected consumers.

Informed riders who value privacy have options. In a competitive market, customers can choose other companies like Lyft, which may collect less personal information. If enough people shift their purchasing decisions, it would place pressure on Uber to shift gears. Also, Uber customers maintain the option of allowing or disallowing background tracking. If a rider chooses to opt out of allowing Uber to access their device’s location data, it is still possible to utilize the application by manually entering the address of the desired pick-up and drop-off spot. On the other hand, many riders don’t see any threat of harm if Uber knows where they are headed after a trip and would allow the company to access their location data, which is also a choice that should be respected. 

Ultimately, consumers have the ability to decide for themselves whether to sacrifice privacy for convenience. Some individuals value their anonymity less, while others care a great deal about the specter of a corporate Panopticon, able to track and monitor their location before selling the data to an unknown third party group seeking to sell whatever product.

However, in order for users to make an informed choice, they must have knowledge of the facts. The disclosure that Uber is collecting and using such information is far from conspicuous on its application, buried several clicks away in the “Legal” section, and would likely go unnoticed by the vast majority of customers. If there is a role for government policy to play in the future, it may be in requiring that instances of private data collection are disclosed by ride sharing companies like Uber to users in a conspicuous manner so that riders can ultimately choose for themselves whether to trade access to personal information for ease of use.

I share the fears of those who are concerned not only about the collection of personal data by the government, but also by large and powerful corporations. However, the outcry over the Uber privacy policy illustrates one important difference between a private versus a government threat—if consumers don’t like how a ridesharing company is tracking their activity, they are free to choose a less intrusive competitor by simply downloading a new application.

Still, privacy advocates in government should monitor the situation going forward to ensure that ridesharing companies plainly disclose the nature and extent to which customers’ personal data is being collected and used. Riders can’t make a choice unless they are aware there is a choice to make.

Matt Rinaldi is a Texas state representative serving on the House Committee on Business and Industry.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.