this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
109 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9541 readers
930 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otters_raft@lemmy.ca
109
Toronto woman sent full transcript of her conversation during Lyft ride (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 week ago by Quilotoa@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A pilot for recording conversation during Lyft rides is going on in some U.S. cities, but it's not supposed to be happening in Canada. A Toronto woman was sent the conversation between her and her friends during a ride, presumably accidentally.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 6 days ago

Ahuja phoned Lyft that night looking for answers. In that initial call, she says a representative told her this was something the ride-sharing company was piloting. But then about a week later after following up with Lyft she received a written message from a member of the company's safety team which blamed the incident on the driver for recording her without her consent and said "proper actions" were taken against the driver.

Bullshit. You can't take it back after admitting to it.

"This could have occurred either through an accidental phone call between the driver's masked number and the rider's masked number (i.e. a pocket dial) that went to voicemail, or an accidental recording of the audio from the ride that was then sent to the rider's masked number via voice-to-text on driver's phone," said the statement.

Bullshit. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a pin or biometrics to unlock their phone. Pocket dials only happen to people like Rudy Giuliani.

[–] ToffeeIsForClosers@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

For Canadians who may be concerned about data privacy, especially US-based companies that may be subject to giving access to the US government under the US Patriot Act and/or Cloud Act, it might be worth the time to write some politicians for action.

There’s PIPEDA for federal level, as mentioned in the article, and there’s municipal level too. Most major cities have by-laws that govern Vehicles-for-Hire.

I’m not sure what they can do about this issue, but it’s worth raising the concern with your councillor in addition to your MP.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

WAS sent. FFS

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So let me get this straight, they want us to believe the driver recorded their conversation, sent it to a transcription service, then texted it to them? And that their rep also lied about there being a pilot program?

Uh huh. What would either of their motives be?

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

Is anyone really surprised, UBER asks for microphone access as a security feature, so you can click record if the driver or passenger feels unsafe. Seems like an extension of this service that maybe wasn't supposed to be directly shared unless am incident happened

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the company recorded without consent of the drivers or passengers then its illegal in Canada (could be just Ontario though)

If they blame the driver then there’s no crime as we are one party consent.

But why would the driver text it to them?

[–] Leeny@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think one party consent even applies if the driver was not part of the conversation. It says it was between the woman and her friends if I'm understanding correctly.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They didn’t have the presumption of privacy from the driver. Driver was clearly visible to them, make himself known to them and was clearly within earshot.

They might have also agreed to being recorded in some slimy Terms and Conditions in the ride share app.

[–] couch1potato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If it's one party consent and the driver consented that should be it

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We get into the grey here, because the passengers probably didn’t include the driver as a participant. You have to be a participant for one-party to hold.

Also, if the conversation was recorded automatically, with no action from the driver, does that count as the driver recording the convo, or the company that controls the recording device?

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

But it's hard to argue that the driver isn't a participant considering that they'd be within touching distance and in no way blocked off from the conversation. Even without actually saying anything, the driver was a passive particapant, or at least it would be argued that way if it ever went to court.

Since only one side needs to give permission to record, and since that permission likely can be taken in the EULA, no matter how scummy it is, this most likely isn't illegal. It's like claiming that a a porch camera can't record a crime because the camera's owner wasn't a direct participant of the crime.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

I ain’t no law-talking guy.

Someone could make the argument that because the driver was a hired professional they shouldn’t be party of the conversations of their clients or some such.

As I said, grey area.

[–] spector@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 week ago

You're always being recorded. Techbros do this on purpose. If they get caught they feign innocence.

They skirt the fringes of legislation anyways so it's not like there's ever legal consequences. On the rare occasions there are. It's a paltry monetary fine.

[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 week ago

So is anyone going to get to the bottom of this? Will there be a lawsuit? This is an incredible breach of privacy and raises profound questions about what is going on at Lyft and any ride-sharing service for that matter. The non-answers provided by Lyft raise even more questions.

[–] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

White nose machine should put an end to that.