search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
UBER UPDATE


UBER FINED OVER WITHHOLDING SEXUAL ASSAULT RECORDS


Uber was fined $59m (£43m) last month for refusing to hand over the details of more than 1,200 alleged victims of sexual assault involving its drivers. BBC News reports that the taxi app firm said providing the information would be a “shocking violation of privacy” for victims. The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), which imposed the fine, said it did not require a public dis- closure of the information. The assaults allegedly took place in California between 2017 and 2019. Uber had argued that public disclosure may be traumatic for survivors, potentially putting them in danger and discouraging others from coming forward. But it also stated, in a long-running case with the CPUC, that it might not have a complete account of the incidents. In its most recent ruling the CPUC said it “requires only that the information regarding sexual assault and sexual harass- ment be submitted to the Commission under seal”, which would have kept the details of individual cases private. It added: “Uber’s effort to frustrate Commission oversight of the particulars of sexual assault and sexual harassment claims is also troubling, given Uber’s professed desire to pro- vide the safest transportation services.” RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) had, in an August filing on the case, defended Uber, saying the firm should not have to share victims’ names without their con- sent. According to the RAINN website, it is involved in a partnership with Uber to provide tips for “the best ways to respect others while driving and riding”. Some pointed out that Uber had in the past shown little regard for user privacy. In November 2017 it concealed a huge data breach that affected 57 million customers and drivers. And in 2016 it was revealed that an internal company tool called God View allowed employees to see the location of Uber vehicles and customers who had requested a car. As a result of that, Uber was ordered by the Federal Trade Commission to bring in stricter controls, and agree to be assessed by an independent auditor every two years. Uber has 30 days to pay the CPUC fine or face having its ser- vices suspended in California.


BRITISH UBER DRIVERS TAKE COMPANY TO COURT OVER SECRET ALGORITHMS


British drivers for ride-hailing company Uber are taking their employer to court in the Netherlands in order to access secret performance data the company collects on them. Sky News reports that according to the legal challenge, the drivers say Uber determines how to allocate rides and fares based on information it generates about drivers’ performance, behaviour and other personal traits it infers


26


through the app they install on their phones. They are demanding full access to this information and to details on how Uber's algorithms work, claiming that the IT ultimately decides how much money they can earn. “Uber should offer total transparency,” lawyer Anton Ekker told Reuters at the District Court in Amsterdam, where Uber’s international head office is located. In response, Uber said it had shared all the information it was required to with its drivers, but that sharing any more could impact passengers’ privacy. “This is very sensitive informa- tion. For a driver, it simply says they went from A to B, but it tells much more about a passenger,” Mr Arnbak added. The company said rides are primarily allocated based on driver locations, routes and fare preferences - and that drivers were excluded from passengers who had previously given them the lowest possible rating. However, it added that individual ratings, complaints and other feedback could not be shared with the drivers for privacy reasons. The District Court in Amsterdam said it would make a deci- sion on the claim by 11 February 2021.


UBER DROPS PLANS FOR FLYING TAXI JOURNEYS


Uber has dropped plans to transport passengers across cities in air taxis, the second ambitious and expensive pro- ject it has pulled the plug on in as many days. According to The Telegraph, the taxi app said on Tuesday 8 December it had sold its Elevate division to Joby Aviation, a US start-up developing its own aircraft. Uber will also invest $75m (£56m) in the company. Uber announced plans for an electric air taxi service in 2017, saying it expected tests to start taking place in 2020. The company had said that over time, the cost of taking a flying taxi would be quicker and cheaper than ordering a car, and that flights would be available to the public in 2023. However, Uber has come under increasing pressure to cut costs during the pandemic, which has seen ride numbers plummet. The news comes just a day after Uber said it would sell its driverless car arm to Aurora, a company that specialises in the technology. While both projects had promised to put Uber at the fore- front of new modes of transport, the company had struggled to make progress against its ambitious deadlines with tech- nical and regulatory hurdles getting in the way. Announcing the deal, Uber’s chief executive Dara Khosrow- shahi said that he was still hopeful about the technology’s potential, and that the company would partner with Joby when its aircraft becomes available. Joby says its vehicles will be able to travel at up to 200 mph with a maximum range of 150 miles. Uber lost $8.5bn in 2019 and lost $5.8bn in the first nine months of last year. It has said it hopes to become profitable towards the end of this year.


JANUARY 2021


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80