# Uber bans drivers from broadcasting recordings of riders



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

I called this: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/uber-bans-drivers-from-broadcasting-recordings-of-riders-months-after/article_febb3b4f-cedd-59ca-813a-8a34ba617275.amp.html






A group of men piled into an Uber SUV late last month. They started complaining about work and their bosses. They had no idea a camera was rolling, and didn't realize their candid conversations would soon be posted online.

This time it happened in Phoenix, and the men recorded without their consent were professional athletes, hockey players for the Ottawa Senators.

A dashcam video of the players badmouthing their coaching staff during the ride quickly spread online this week. And though it happened some 1,400 miles from St. Louis, the story highlights what Uber has changed after a similar story broke in the St. Louis Post-Dispatchthis summer.

In July, the paper reported that Jason Gargac, a driver with ride-hailing apps Uber and Lyft, streamed some 700 of his rides live online without his passengers' consent. Gargac exposed addresses, names and personal conversations about his customers' bosses, spouses and children, all while an online audience watched on the website Twitch and commented in real time. Some viewers focused their comments on female riders and their bodies, and sometimes Gargac joined in.

After Gargac was exposed, an Uber spokesman told the Post-Dispatch that the company would examine its policies, which at the time did not specifically ban the practice. On Wednesday, a spokesman said the company has changed its official guidelines for drivers recording passengers.

An earlier policy stated only that drivers could record rides for safety, but should follow local privacy laws. The new guideline adds: "Broadcasting a person's image, audio or video recording is a violation of (Uber's) terms and may result in loss of account access."

The company also added that drivers are not allowed to use customers' personal data for any reason other than transportation, and that disrespectful or unsafe conduct can result in revocation of their access. The new policy went into effect at the end of September, a spokesman said.

The policy does not prevent drivers from continuing to use cameras for security purposes.

An Uber spokesman said the company did not send alerts to all drivers about the change to the policy, but posted the change to the driver guidelines online.

This week, the controversy over the hockey players' ride put Uber's new rules to the test.

The video, which appears to have been taken by a driver using a dashcam, was posted online on both YouTube and Twitter, according to media reports. The original video has been removed, but it was copied and widely re-posted by social media users and some media outlets.






The footage from Oct. 29 quickly gained attention in sports and Canadian mediafor the players' comments, including center Matt Duchene griping about team meetings.

"We don't change anything, ever," he said. "So why do we even have a meeting? I haven't paid attention in three weeks."

The players released a statement after the video began to spread online, and apologized to their coach.

"Our private conversation was recorded without our knowledge or consent," the statement said.

Uber's public response to the recording stands in contrast to how the company initially handled Gargac's livestreams around St. Louis.

Customers who learned they were being recorded had complained to the company. Some got $5 credits, but Gargac continued to work for Uber. When the Post-Dispatch first contacted Uber with questions about Gargac's actions, the company released a prepared response simply noting the recording appeared to be legal in Missouri.

"Driver partners are responsible for complying with the law when providing trips, including privacy laws," an Uber spokesman wrote in an initial statement. "Recording passengers without their consent is illegal in some states, but not Missouri."

The company ignored follow-up questions over the course of that week. It wasn't until the day after the story was published online that the company removed Gargac and condemned his actions as a violation of company policies. Uber did not ban livestreaming or recording of passengers without their consent at that time. Instead, the company cited a part of its policies that prohibits inappropriate or disrespectful behavior by drivers, including comments on appearance or sexual remarks.

The reaction to the video of the hockey players in Arizona stands in contrast. Shortly after the video began to circulate, Rob Khazzam, general manager of Uber Canada, posted a message to Twitter saying that the recording was a clear violation of Uber's policies.

"Filming or recording passengers without their consent is totally unacceptable and if reported / detected we will investigate and take action to preserve our communities privacy and integrity," Khazzam posted. "In this specific case, we made efforts to have the video taken down."

An Uber spokesman confirmed Wednesday that the driver in the Phoenix recording has been removed from Uber.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

I personally do not like cameras inside the vehicle as I believe in privacy between the rider and the driver. But I also believe in the rights of drivers that do want to record for the reasons they believe.

Rideshare companies don’t own our vehicles or dashcams. Lawsuit in the making. If they were our official Employers and owned the vehicle then they have an argument.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

The Driver who posted Travis should be banned also.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I personally do not like cameras inside the vehicle as I believe in privacy between the rider and the driver. But I also believe in the rights of drivers that do want to record for the reasons they believe.
> 
> Rideshare companies don't own our vehicles or dashcams. Lawsuit in the making. If they were our official Employers and owned the vehicle then they have an argument.


They are protecting the client and their business from privacy and lawsuits. You are using their platform. This is a very happy medium in which you are still allowed to use a camera for various reasons but not allowed to post online for all to see. If passengers cross the line, if you're in a accident, if too many riders pile in, you have evidence. Just don't try and ruin other people's lives in the process buy sharing a YouTube video. It's totally unnecessary.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> The Driver who posted Travis should be banned also.


I feel like he should get a lifetime achievement award from all drivers cause he was the one that stood up against Goliath and dropped Travis. If every driver donated a $1.00 to him standing up for all of us he could retire.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Yup. Ya done did call it Burger. 

I've avoided watching the vids or even reading about it thinking it gossip and none of my business. I hope it has not hurt their futures. Not like you can do that stuff for 20 and a gold watch.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I feel like he should get a lifetime achievement award from all drivers cause he was the one that stood up against Goliath and dropped Travis. If every driver donated a $1.00 to him standing up for all of us he could retire.


Travis never had to engage him.
He could have walked off.

Travis only mistake was trying to talk to him man to man.

I have Respect for Travis for doing that.

Anyone else . . .probably would have silently walked off. And Rightfully terminated the driver.

Clients DESERVE a level of privacy !
Including Uber Corporate Clients !


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


> They are protecting the client and their business from privacy and lawsuits. You are using their platform. This is a very happy medium in which you are still allowed to use a camera for various reasons but not allowed to post online for all to see. If passengers cross the line, if you're in a accident, if too many riders pile in, you have evidence. Just don't try and ruin other people's lives in the process buy sharing a YouTube video. It's totally unnecessary.


I think Uber is protecting themselves... Uber has been traditionally been self serving. Videos uploaded is bad for business in their eyes. As mentioned I don't have a cam because I like the privacy factor and if something does happen and it isn't on video oh well there are plenty of ways to make money. I would rather have riders be themselves and not worry about what they are saying or doing on camera.

On the flipside it would be interesting to see what would happen if a case went to court of a driver recording, posting online and getting deactivated and how they would rule. I guess we will see if someone decides to test the system.

There is only one ride I wish I had on tape. It would have been off the scales scandalous for the rider. I keep that one close to my vest as a once in a lifetime ride.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I think Uber is protecting themselves... Uber has been traditionally been self serving. Videos uploaded is bad for business in their eyes. As mentioned I don't have a cam because I like the privacy factor and if something does happen and it isn't on video oh well there are plenty of ways to make money. I would rather have riders be themselves and not worry about what they are saying or doing on camera.
> 
> On the flipside it would be interesting to see what would happen if a case went to court of a driver recording, posting online and getting deactivated and how they would rule. I guess we will see if someone decides to test the system.


ANY " Service" Industry has a non disclosure standard.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I feel like he should get a lifetime achievement award from all drivers cause he was the one that stood up against Goliath and dropped Travis. If every driver donated a $1.00 to him standing up for all of us he could retire.


I read in an article that Travis paid that driver $200k.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Z129 said:


> I read in an article that Travis paid that driver $200k.


Thats was a nice haul for dude... At least he was able to pay off his fleet.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I think Uber is protecting themselves... Uber has been traditionally been self serving. Videos uploaded is bad for business in their eyes. As mentioned I don't have a cam because I like the privacy factor and if something does happen and it isn't on video oh well there are plenty of ways to make money. I would rather have riders be themselves and not worry about what they are saying or doing on camera.
> 
> On the flipside it would be interesting to see what would happen if a case went to court of a driver recording, posting online and getting deactivated and how they would rule. I guess we will see if someone decides to test the system.
> 
> There is only one ride I wish I had on tape. It would have been off the scales scandalous for the rider. I keep that one close to my vest as a once in a lifetime ride.


Do you use a strictly road one? I'm of the opinion they are prudent in and out but just the forward one has made me feel more relaxed knowing there's a witness. Really worth a few bucks or there are apps that allow using an' old cell phone.

Does make our gig that much more enjoyable. Just MVHO and sorry for the off topic.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> Thats was a nice haul for dude... At least he was able to pay off his fleet.


It seems like up until that point in time Travis thought the drivers liked him. When Travis got booted out the board gave us tips and the 180 days of change thing as if drivers were going to quit because Travis was not CEO.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Important topic and I am sidtracking. Feel free to ignore


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Z129 said:


> It seems like up until that point in time Travis thought the drivers liked him. When Travis got booted out the board gave us tips and the 180 days of change thing as if drivers were going to quit because Travis was not CEO.


Yeah the driver was like Paul Revere. He may have been one that kicked the tipping in quicker for all of us.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

tohunt4me said:


> Travis never had to engage him.
> He could have walked off.
> 
> Travis only mistake was trying to talk to him man to man.
> ...


I also don't think that Travis came across as particularly bad in that video.

As long as Uber does not ban the use of dashcams I have no problem not sharing videos. To me the dashcam is to protect me from those he said/she said scenarios. Like I've said recently, I would not do this job without a dashcam or equivalent.


----------



## PioneerXi (Apr 20, 2018)

Consider.

Uber forbids the publication of dash cam video.
Female passenger makes false complaint of sexual harassment.
Uber deactivates driver without consulting driver.
Driver pulls out video showing paxhole and no occurrence of incident.

There’s no apology or restitution to the driver. Just the usual “policy requires deactivation while we investigate.”

The more controls Uber places on independent contractors, the more drivers begin to look like employees.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

PioneerXi said:


> Consider.
> 
> Uber forbids the publication of dash cam video.
> Female passenger makes false complaint of sexual harassment.
> ...


Well said.....


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

I'm not even sure why this video went viral. I didn't see any boobs. Did anybody see boobs?


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Danny3xd said:


> Do you use a strictly road one? I'm of the opinion they are prudent in and out but just the forward one has made me feel more relaxed knowing there's a witness. Really worth a few bucks or there are apps that allow using an' old cell phone.
> 
> Does make our gig that much more enjoyable. Just MVHO and sorry for the off topic.


It allows drivers to use video cameras, dash cameras and other recording devices for security purposes - but not to broadcast them.

"Broadcasting a person's image, audio, or video recording is a violation of these terms and may result in loss of account access," the guideline states.
*This also means no live streaming! So don't even have a sheet ready asking for consent. Because even if they do consent, they will just say they were intoxicated and you cannot consent if one is intoxicated. 
This will also lay to rest those fake YouTubers posting lambo pickups. We'll it's faked beyond a doubt now.


----------



## uber1969 (Dec 22, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> The Driver who posted Travis should be banned also.


Why


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Z129 said:


> I read in an article that Travis paid that driver $200k.


It still didnt cover the P.R. damages.

Ignore & walk off.

Leave driver ranting to himself.

If i take an uber ride
I have NO INTENTION OF APPEARING ON YOUTUBE !


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Racist! Raciest I tell ya!


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> I'm not even sure why this video went viral. I didn't see any boobs. Did anybody see boobs?


I did. They were talking about stuff in public they shouldn't have.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

AP: https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Uber-guideline-now-prohibits-broadcasting-13375732.php

The new guideline was put in place at the end of September, an Uber spokesman said Thursday. It allows drivers to use video cameras, dash cameras and other recording devices for security purposes - but not to broadcast them.
"Broadcasting a person's image, audio, or video recording is a violation of these terms and may result in loss of account access," the guideline states


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Good, I never thought the right to record in public means the right to post the recordings online without consent.


----------



## exnihilodrive (Oct 4, 2017)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> AP: https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Uber-guideline-now-prohibits-broadcasting-13375732.php
> 
> The new guideline was put in place at the end of September, an Uber spokesman said Thursday. It allows drivers to use video cameras, dash cameras and other recording devices for security purposes - but not to broadcast them.
> "Broadcasting a person's image, audio, or video recording is a violation of these terms and may result in loss of account access," the guideline states


Exactly. Did anyone actually read the policy?
I don't have a dash cam just for reinstatement over a BS Claim. But because no one can send me to jail over it. That's it.

Writing is on the wall though. The end is near. Perhaps they will make us employees hahaha


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Just a side thought. The few times I was asked about my cam, it was by shadier looking folks. A few just regular folks but they seem more curious than cautious.

The piece of mind the cams give me make them well worth it IMHO. I wouldn't want to go back to driving folks with out one or having the traffic side, either.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Danny3xd said:


> Just a side thought. The few times I was asked about my cam, it was by shadier looking folks. A few just regular folks but they seem more curious than cautious.
> 
> The piece of mind the cams give me make them well worth it IMHO. I wouldn't want to go back to driving folks with out one or having the traffic side, either.


Understood with the traffic cam. The inside cam still has me reluctant to purchase one. I still think about this quote especially after 911. The surveillance state is in full effect everywhere.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Interesting point. (and I thought that was Jefferson?)

I don't think I am giving up or asking that anything be given up. More just ensuring there is a witness. Crime in London went down dramatically after surveillance cameras were installed. I also like RoRo's thought (think it was Ro's) about privacy is at home and in public, you're out in public.

My point, if a cop recognizes a bad actor on the street. Is that any different than a camera with facial recognition? Had the person stayed indoors at home, he could expect not to be recorded. But by definition there can be no expectation of privacy in public. An uber is a public conveyance.

I really do see your point. But do think my welfare and safety comes first in this case.

Saw a scifi movie the other day that I thought made your point really well. A line from it; "It's not that we have anything to hide. We just don't have anything we want you to know"

I thought that great and summed up my misgivings about meta-data and public surveillance.

Some really fine hairs to be considered for sure!


----------



## Beltsville (Apr 6, 2018)

tohunt4me said:


> Travis never had to engage him.
> He could have walked off.
> 
> Travis only mistake was trying to talk to him man to man.
> ...


Don't agree. This privacy thing is misunderstood. You don't have a bubble of privacy around you. You don't get to magically determine how others must protect your own words. Mind you mouth or use your own property.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

BurgerTiime said:


> I called this: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/uber-bans-drivers-from-broadcasting-recordings-of-riders-months-after/article_febb3b4f-cedd-59ca-813a-8a34ba617275.amp.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They should have done this earlier.


----------



## x100 (Dec 7, 2015)

Z129 said:


> I read in an article that Travis paid that driver $200k.


Highly doubt that.


----------



## FlashedBlaze (Sep 30, 2018)

That Uber Driver rebellion shall commence! Let the games begin!


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

I sincerely wish we would get ourselves and our collective "_stuff" _together and do that.

I have offered and pleaded. Not one response. Never, nodda zip. But we are all outraged by the same issues. Are great at commiserating. We are even supportive. We loudly voice our thoughts to each other. Some even actually tell the powers that be.

But never as one collective or with any actual sway.

Light a candle or curse the dark?


----------



## DocT (Jul 16, 2015)

Riders should abide by the same "cam" rules as drivers in 2-party consent states.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Does anyone know what "broadcasting" actually is?


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Travis never had to engage him.
> He could have walked off.
> 
> Travis only mistake was trying to talk to him man to man.
> ...


That's video was back when drivers made more money. It has gotten much much worse for drivers today earnings wise.

That dude was *****ing about uberX undercutting his uber black business into the ground.


----------



## Yam Digger (Sep 12, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> I'm not even sure why this video went viral. I didn't see any boobs. Did anybody see boobs?


Only man-boobs. And I don't swing that way.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Fargle said:


> Does anyone know what "broadcasting" actually is?


Ask Mow, Curly or Larry. They know what broad casting is.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> Ask Mow, Curly or Larry. They know what broad casting is.


I asked because I know what broadcasting is and this isn't it.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Posting on youtube or the like? That is definitely broadcasting. Recording passengers isn't or am I missing your point Fargle?

Edit;

I am wrong. Uploading to YouTube is not the same as broadcasting


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Danny3xd said:


> Posting on youtube or the like? That is definitely broadcasting. Recording passengers isn't or am I missing your point Fargle?


Nope. In the context of audio and video, broadcasting has always referred to operating a radio transmitter or cable system in a transmit-only mode. Posting things on the internet is by definition not broadcasting. In computer networking, broadcasting means constructing a packet to be received by all nodes on the network. This is not how Youtube works. The closest the internet has gotten to broadcasting was with an experiment called Mbone, which started in 1992 and shut down in 2008.


----------



## DocT (Jul 16, 2015)

Many drivers are not as "technical" as you, Fargle . Maybe a better word to replace "broadcast" would be "publicize" instead.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Kinda semantical, I looked it up. According to all dictionaries I read, "broadcast" was strictly used as in television and radio.


----------



## Andocrates (Jun 8, 2018)

uber1969 said:


> Why


Because you aren't the only one with rights.

It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny. James Fenmore Cooper



Fargle said:


> I asked because I know what broadcasting is and this isn't it.


I won't disagree but - what is a broadcast spreader? It scatters fertilizer or chicken feed over a large area. If a video is posted on YouTube and at least one other place you are broadcasting. (casting broadly.)


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

LoL, I agree with your not disagreeing. Think it if not already will be an accepted use. Language has to grow with technology.


----------



## Andocrates (Jun 8, 2018)

Danny3xd said:


> LoL, I agree with your not disagreeing. Think it if not already will be an accepted use. Language has to grow with technology.


I think it grew into 'podcast.'


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

Perhaps instead of broadcast they should have used publicly distribute. Considering how lawyers like to vacillate about verbiage, maybe that was a highly calculated statement and not just a slip.

I think they are just trying to define what should be common courtesy. If you have a housewife talking about cheating on their husband or someone dishing on their company or bosses, that should not be publicly available IMHO.

Now, like with Travis, that was violence. That video went to the police and then became part of the public record. The police can do whatever they want with the video.

One thing though, if you are terminated by Uber you are not bound by their restrictions. Also, if it is something like abuse on the driver and the video/audio was legally obtained then it is also fair game. AFAIK, there are no real restrictions as no one can have an expectation of privacy in public places. On the road is a public place. I'm sure there are lawyers that would love to try to tear that argument apart just like there would be many to defend it. Once again, it goes before a judge...


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Z129 said:


> I read in an article that Travis paid that driver $200k.


I read in an article that I can make $90,000 a year driving for Uber.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I read in an article that I can make $90,000 a year driving for Uber.


I read that same article.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

BurgerTiime said:


> It allows drivers to use video cameras, dash cameras and other recording devices for security purposes - but not to broadcast them.
> 
> "Broadcasting a person's image, audio, or video recording is a violation of these terms and may result in loss of account access," the guideline states.
> *This also means no live streaming! So don't even have a sheet ready asking for consent. Because even if they do consent, they will just say they were intoxicated and you cannot consent if one is intoxicated.
> This will also lay to rest those fake YouTubers posting lambo pickups. We'll it's faked beyond a doubt now.


So they can consent to a huge surge and a $500 trip while intoxicated (not recently, but not uncommon in the past) but not a video?

Uber would like video if it made them money....


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So they can consent to a huge surge and a $500 trip while intoxicated (not recently, but not uncommon in the past) but not a video?
> 
> Uber would like video if it made them money....


The could charge us a fee to store our videos on their cloud. They should give Travis a call about this as he has experience moving large amounts of video files.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Andocrates said:


> I won't disagree but - what is a broadcast spreader? It scatters fertilizer or chicken feed over a large area. If a video is posted on YouTube and at least one other place you are broadcasting. (casting broadly.)


A broadcast feeder uses the original meaning of "broadcast", which is to throw broadly, particularly when spreading seeds on a field or feeding animals. That action is the metaphor going on when a single transmitter sends to many receivers. Two-way radios services typically don't broadcast. If you do it with CB or ham radio, the FCC will fine you.

Posting to Youtube is akin to tacking something on a public corkboard. If anything should be banned is livestreaming stuff in cars for laughs. If riders are engaging in bad behavior, footage will be made available to all. Anything less muzzles the drivers who are victimized by bad behavior.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

LoL, Post on youtube with header "Only Uber employees and partners may view" Then it is for internal discussion and or training purposes only. Partners and employees.

Then your only broadcasting (common vernacular) internally, in public. 

Of course it's their ball and if you don't let them be captain, you can't play. Just poking at the thought. 

They, Uber had to say something and did.

Really doubt it would stop drivers from posting anything salacious. (I still wouldn't do it and think it wrong)


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Here’s the facts:
Uber & Lyft have permanently ended its relationship with a Twitch streamer. 

Uber & Lyft has ended their parntnship with a YouTube streamers. 

Uber and Lyft have ended their relationship with YouTuber upkoaders. 

Uber & Lyft have ended their partnership with drivers whom distributed their recordings with news outlets. 

So any form of recording, streaming, sharing of passengers with any sort of media to the public will get you deactivated. 

Uber and Lyft have not banned your right of use; “dash cam for safety and liability purposes.”


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


> Here's the facts:
> Uber & Lyft have permanently ended its relationship with a Twitch streamer.
> 
> Uber & Lyft has ended their parntnship with a YouTube streamers.
> ...


LoL, BT. I think at least every other page of any thread should have a recap like this. Most are after a few pages, that go unread by newer posters. Get rehashed and it goes round robin.

(And robin is a lovely woman with 2 kids and a dog)


----------



## FlashedBlaze (Sep 30, 2018)

The whole no broadcasting policy is ridiculous and another legit reason why I won't be driving for rideshare anymore.

For example, if I ever get a wanted person that is on the Top 10 FBI most wanted, or someone wanted terrorist, I broadcast my dashcam footage so we can hunt that wanted person down and Uber or Lyft deactivates me, they gonna get the biggest backlash heard around the world.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Danny3xd said:


> LoL, Post on youtube with header "Only Uber employees and partners may view" Then it is for internal discussion and or training purposes only. Partners and employees.
> 
> Then your only broadcasting (common vernacular) internally, in public.
> 
> ...


It's not even "broadcasting" in any common or uncommon vernacular. Showing passersby of a bulletin board how much of an asshole Joe Rider is, is not something Uber or anyone else has any grounds to object no matter what mealymouthed excuse is offered. Consider a franchised restaurant. Franchisee is within full rights to name and shame passers of fake money, pictures/video/audio of any kind of assholery. Same goes for drivers.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

FlashedBlaze said:


> The whole no broadcasting policy is ridiculous and another legit reason why I won't be driving for rideshare anymore.
> 
> For example, if I ever get a wanted person that is on the Top 10 FBI most wanted, or someone wanted terrorist, I broadcast my dashcam footage so we can hunt that wanted person down and Uber or Lyft deactivates me, they gonna get the biggest backlash heard around the world.


Ya really gonna leave all this fun FB? Anything cool on the horizon?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

I'm surprised

That it took uber this long


----------

