[wopwopwop]

> This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver.

Why? If I were a driver, you can be sure I would be filming everyone. Does that mean I would have no credibility?

Here in London I've assumed that cabs are always filming.

[feelix]

> And the gig has gotten harder for longtime drivers. In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Black car drivers get paid less and their business faces far more competition from other Uber services.

Considering that he did change the price from under the driver, and that is very likely what did indeed bankrupt the guy, I don't blame him from acting out in any way he can.

The fact that the CEO just screams out "BULLSHIT" when he points out the price decrease which affected him and that his only response just makes me lose respect for him completely.

[lotp]

He's only saying "bullshit" to the guys claim they were originally making $20/mile... Sounds like from info you posted that both the $20 and the $2.75 per mile claim are completely wrong.

Kamel: “We started with $20.”

Kalanick: “Bullshit.”

Kamel: “We started with $20. How much is the mile now, $2.75?”

[beejiu]

They would not be able to publish the video, however. That would be illegal.

[chickenfries]

Why?

[beejiu]

In the UK specifically, it would fall under the Data Protection Act. You need to make sure that the data (video) is used fairly and lawfully and for a defined purpose. In this case, the purpose of collection is safety, not for publishing on Bloomberg.com.

[oculusthrift]

look up 2 party consent laws in California.

[TheseDays888]

"Here in London..."

Not sure referring to California laws follows here. It's for a different reason.

[iraphael]

that's for use of a recording in court, not sure it applies to this situation

[caffeinewriter]

What? No.

> The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, all parties must consent to the recording.