[c0rtex]

With respect to his point that Uber requires passengers to identify themselves, I think a completely anonymous transportation system is not what is needed. Why do conventional taxi services and public transit systems have cameras? The answer is ostensibly to provide safety not only to the rider but also to the driver and other passengers [1]. But I'm sure Stallman would say "ban the cameras everywhere, Big Brother has no business tracking us!" If I were a cab driver though, I would feel safer knowing that a video of the transaction was at least being captured. And as a passenger I would feel less violated if I knew that the video was stored offline and took some amount of effort to retrieve, could only by accessed by certain individuals, and even then only with proper oversight.

What is needed is a balance between privacy and safety. Uber violates user's privacy, but fully anonymous transportation, especially in a one-on-one ridesharing situation, is unsafe for both parties. Law enforcement should be hard, not impossible.

[1]: http://taxi.vic.gov.au/drivers/taxi-drivers/driver-safety/sa...

[couchand]

Follow the link to the description of the New York City surveillance system. There you will see that he actually shares your viewpoint:

"New York City has a long history of oppressive surveillance. Taxicabs in New York transmit the passengers' photos by radio to the thugs, so I never take taxicabs there. By contrast, car service cars only store passengers' photos; that system is tolerable since, if you don't attack the driver (something I never do), the photos are ignored."

https://stallman.org/archives/2012-may-aug.html#10_August_20...