Uber Sued for Exposing Husband's Infidelity

[Katchii]

Kind of confused about how this is a breach of privacy. It sounds like he installed and used Uber on his wifes phone, (maybe they share an account), and the app continued to send generic location notifications to the device...so the app was working as intended from what I can gather, not enough information yet to know whether the program fucked up or he's just an idiot about how to use an Uber account. Is a generic location considered protected private information?

[stomination]

If a serial killer was outed because of an Uber glitch would you be upset with uber?

If a person was murdered by a serial killer because of an uber glitch would you be upset with uber?

This stuff goes both ways. There is no highroad here other than the one you keep trying to make up.

[serenka]

Kind of confused about how this is a breach of privacy. It sounds like he installed and used Uber on his wifes phone, (maybe they share an account), and the app continued to send generic location notifications to the device...so the app was working as intended from what I can gather, not enough information yet to know whether the program fucked up or he's just an idiot about how to use an Uber account. Is a generic location considered protected private information?

He was logged out of the app (apparently) on his wife's phone, why should an app continue to send notifications about your location to a phone you're no longer signed into?

[Brubear]

It doesn't ignore how stringent European laws can be, it just means if they award him millions of dollars because of a bug that allowed his wife's phone to receive notifications after he used her phone to access his account, those laws, and subsequently those courts, are fucking retarded. To me (and most rational people), this boils down to initial fault. He logged in from his wife's phone, he is ultimately responsible, bug or not. The law suit is nothing less than malicious.



Uber is guilty of failing to fix a bug. Outside of documentation stating that the information provided by those notifications is classified as "private" information and that said documentation is not invalidated by their terms of service, I'm not convinced that his "privacy" was "violated". As far as the Trump scenario: You have neither the expectation nor the right to privacy in a public setting.

Except for there is a difference between contributory and comparative negligence. Many courts (including a lot of states) recognize that contributory negligence (where you receive nothing because you are slightly at fault in some way, even if another party is mostly at fault) isn't a good standard so they use comparative negligence, where the award is based on how much at fault you are.

Yes, the man would not have been caught if he hadn't cheated. He also would not have been caught if Ubers app hadn't bugged out. They are both at fault. Just because this man was cheating on his wife doesn't mean that Uber is blameless as this bug has some pretty serious data privacy implications, especially when you factor in their recent history with lax data privacy issues (as seen by them storing employee data in a public github repository). If I'm driving without my seatbelt and get hit by someone who ran a red light, we're both liable for damages. The person running the light is mostly responsible and will pay the majority of damages, but I will also have to pay a portion of them since I was not using a seat belt which most likely would have mitigated some, if not all, of the damages to myself. Initial fault isn't the be-all-end-all when considering who is legally responsible.

But I guess I should just stop trying seeing as how, based off of your esteemed opinion, I am not a rational person (along with anyone else who may disagree with you).

[Katchii]

He was logged out of the app (apparently) on his wife's phone, why should an app continue to send notifications about your location to a phone you're no longer signed into?

Fair enough, the app may have been messing up. Still doesn't really answer the question regarding whether a generic location is considered protected private information like a social security number, or something similar.

[Deleted]

You're making too many assumptions, first of all.

You're assuming he logged out.
You're assuming logging out is a magic act that turns off the user contract.
You're assuming that app notifications are classified differently than messages and texts and not only that but in a way where they are even more important or bigger problem.

You're also ignoring the first thing I posted from the contract:


We actually don't need to go further than that. Remember, Uber didn't send his personal information to a random person. He's in charge of securing the app from his end. He didn't do that. That's on him, not Uber.

The app didn't fuck up. There's nothing anywhere that says the app will stop sending notifications to a phone used to log into the app. Again, you guys wished this into existence, but logging out doesn't turn everything off, including personal responsibility.

As for French and EU law, a third party wasn't given personal information. When the husband used the wife's phone to use Uber, that phone became "first party". That's part of the trade off of the convenience of using internet services.

If you go the assumptions route we can go

You're assuming that the wife divorced him
You're assuming that he even uses uber, etc.

We only have an article to go by so if we discuss the case we discuss based on the info available not things that may or may not have happened at all.

The user contract isn't something magical that absolves Uber of all responsibility either. Based on laws(which take precedence over ToS) private info of the husband was sent to the wife when it shouldn't have been and that's all there is to it. You can't really make a case that because an account was used on a device it's normal for that device to keep receiving data from that account. And yes, notifications are a different thing. The ToS mentions text messages and phone calls not everything under the sun. They are a bigger problem for this case because Uber can't go "Oh, but he agreed to us sending things via text so we obviously assumed that the phone number used is the private number of the owner so we sent private info to it".

He did secure his account. He knew his account and didn't disclose it to the wife based on the whole thing actually being something and then logged off so it wouldn't be accessible. Pretty good job at making it secure.

There's nothing in my banking app that says it won't send all my money to charity if i open it from Dubai but that doesn't mean it should or that it's legal to do so. Personal responsibility still stays, he's an asshole for cheating and deserves the divorce. That doesn't however waive that Uber fucked up and sent his private info to a device which wasn't logged in with that account.

[serenka]

Fair enough, the app may have been messing up. Still doesn't really answer the question regarding whether a generic location is considered protected private information like a social security number, or something similar.

That's a fair question, and how specific is the location information? Does it just say you booked an uber in Paris? Or does it say the full address of your pick up and drop off location?
If the latter, uber definitely needs to make a change to its app, bit I'm still unsure of how the lawsuit will turn out.

[Mistame]

I think that Uber should be punished for releasing private information that caused material harm to this man's life.

Uber did not "release private information". The application sent automatic notifications to a device he had previously logged in with. And while it may have sent those notifications after he logged out, perhaps due to a bug, he clearly neglected to disable those notifications (because, you know, the notifications happened). Not to mention whether or not generic location information is actually considered "private".

Still doesn't really answer the question regarding whether a generic location is considered protected private information like a social security number, or something similar.

I'm really not sure it does. Some people seem to follow the mistaken notion that any information you don't want shared is inherently "private". Which, combined with the frivolous nature of this law suit, is what makes this case so irritating.

[Slant]

http://www.pcmag.com/news/351688/ube...nds-infidelity

Can you believe the nerve of this guy. If he didn't want this outcome then he shouldn't have cheated in the first place.

Or properly deinstalled that app. :P

[Bodakane]

Haha, man you're reaching so far I can't even believe it.

You're actually suggesting that an app giving account notifications on a device not connected to that account is intended. You're, for some absurd reason, implying that people have to turn off notifications on an app that is no longer connected to an account, to stop sending notifications for said account.

I can't even believe it. Do you even own a smartphone? Do you even know how notifications on smartphones work? I assume not.

With your logic, it makes perfect sense if an email app sends you notifications of new emails, after removing your email account for that app. It makes absolutely no sense.

Just to make sure you understand what's going on: Uber has confirmed that it's a bug. I.e it's not supposed to happen. Are people expected to know about such bugs, you say?

Who is reaching exactly?

You don't get to use someone else's device, forget to turn off notifications and then claim you were wronged.

Your analogy is fucking stupid. If he had removed Uber from his wife's phone, then your analogy would make sense.

True story, my calenadar program will in fact email me dates if neither the claendar app nor the email program are open......ALERT THE PRESS!!!!! CALL IN THE MILITARY!!!!!!!!!! THIS INJUSTICE CANNOT STAND!!!!!!!!

If you want to talk about logic, then here's some for you.....

His wife didn't give him permission to use her phone to call Uber to hook up with other people. But so what right? Well then, I guess if someone took your phone, used it schedule an Uber pickup, then returned your phone, and Uber let you know, then Uber should be in trouble for violating that person's privacy....right? Its the exact same argument after all.....

[Mormolyce]

Can you believe the nerve of this guy. If he didn't want this outcome then he shouldn't have cheated in the first place.

Be reasonable, he's French. :P

[Bodakane]

If you go the assumptions route we can go

You're assuming that the wife divorced him
You're assuming that he even uses uber, etc.

We only have an article to go by so if we discuss the case we discuss based on the info available not things that may or may not have happened at all.

The user contract isn't something magical that absolves Uber of all responsibility either. Based on laws(which take precedence over ToS) private info of the husband was sent to the wife when it shouldn't have been and that's all there is to it. You can't really make a case that because an account was used on a device it's normal for that device to keep receiving data from that account. And yes, notifications are a different thing. The ToS mentions text messages and phone calls not everything under the sun. They are a bigger problem for this case because Uber can't go "Oh, but he agreed to us sending things via text so we obviously assumed that the phone number used is the private number of the owner so we sent private info to it".

He did secure his account. He knew his account and didn't disclose it to the wife based on the whole thing actually being something and then logged off so it wouldn't be accessible. Pretty good job at making it secure.

There's nothing in my banking app that says it won't send all my money to charity if i open it from Dubai but that doesn't mean it should or that it's legal to do so. Personal responsibility still stays, he's an asshole for cheating and deserves the divorce. That doesn't however waive that Uber fucked up and sent his private info to a device which wasn't logged in with that account.

I didn't make or even imply the divorce thing.
As for using Uber, this isn't a thing if he didn't use Uber. So it's a safe assumption he did use it. It is NOT safe assumption he logged out.

It does absolve them of responsibility for certain things, though. Logging off carries with it no such safety. Private info was not sent to the wife, it was sent to the device he used. Again, I cannot tell my doctor my address is somewhere different than my address, then sue her for a breach of my privacy if she sends my personal medical info to the wrong address that I gave her.

He did not secure his account. He used someone else's device to log into his account. That is literally Rule #1 of what not to do when trying to keep your info secure.

Your banking app analogy makes no sense to the actual issue at hand. Again, if Uber sent the info to a random device, you'd have a point, but putting in your login info while on that device implies you're fine with that device having that info.

[Gray_Matter]

Its kind of a shitty thing to do, book an uber on your wifes phone, to take you to cheat on your wife, but its a clear problem with the app if its still sending notifications about his location etc to the phone.

He didn't necessarily cheat that time. On the face of it, it sounds like a problem with Uber. It should be tied to any device that uses the service once. I can just picture the situation where a person has a support phone and uses uber. Later, they could be going to interviews and get fired because the company is notified where they have been.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't make or even imply the divorce thing.
As for using Uber, this isn't a thing if he didn't use Uber. So it's a safe assumption he did use it. It is NOT safe assumption he logged out.

It does absolve them of responsibility for certain things, though. Logging off carries with it no such safety. Private info was not sent to the wife, it was sent to the device he used. Again, I cannot tell my doctor my address is somewhere different than my address, then sue her for a breach of my privacy if she sends my personal medical info to the wrong address that I gave her.

He did not secure his account. He used someone else's device to log into his account. That is literally Rule #1 of what not to do when trying to keep your info secure.

Your banking app analogy makes no sense to the actual issue at hand. Again, if Uber sent the info to a random device, you'd have a point, but putting in your login info while on that device implies you're fine with that device having that info.

And if he did log off? Using a device once shouldn't tie that device permanently to the account. If you want to equate it to internet banking it would be like saying that logging in on a PC once entitles the bank to allow all future visits from that computer without a password. Obviously it's not wise to log into banking on someone else's computer but the fact remains that they don't tie that computer permanently to the account.

[Bodakane]

And if he did log off? Using a device once shouldn't tie that device permanently to the account. If you want to equate it to internet banking it would be like saying that logging in on a PC once entitles the bank to allow all future visits from that computer without a password. Obviously it's not wise to log into banking on someone else's computer but the fact remains that they don't tie that computer permanently to the account.

But again, that's not what happened.

When you put that app on a phone it asks if you want notifications turned on. If it's not my phone and I don't ensure that notifications are off for that app that I used on that phone, that means I didn't make sure I was secure.

[Deleted]

But again, that's not what happened.

When you put that app on a phone it asks if you want notifications turned on. If it's not my phone and I don't ensure that notifications are off for that app that I used on that phone, that means I didn't make sure I was secure.

Does Uber app specifically ask if you want notifications off or on? Because some apps don't even ask and some apps even turn them on after you turned them off.

[Krastyn]

But again, that's not what happened.

When you put that app on a phone it asks if you want notifications turned on. If it's not my phone and I don't ensure that notifications are off for that app that I used on that phone, that means I didn't make sure I was secure.

I like how you're trying to defend that it wasn't a bug, when the article in fact says it was, and that Uber patched it.

[Asrialol]

Who is reaching exactly?

You don't get to use someone else's device, forget to turn off notifications and then claim you were wronged.

Would his wife be okay with him turning off notifications for her apps, though? Huh.

Your analogy is fucking stupid. If he had removed Uber from his wife's phone, then your analogy would make sense.

You'd think my analogy is stupid, until you read this:

True story, my calenadar program will in fact email me dates if neither the claendar app nor the email program are open......ALERT THE PRESS!!!!! CALL IN THE MILITARY!!!!!!!!!! THIS INJUSTICE CANNOT STAND!!!!!!!!

You've obviously misunderstood something. That's okay, it's not the first time you've done so.

If you remove your account from said apps. Would it still make sense for said apps to feed you notifications about upcoming events from your calendar, that is no longer synced and connected to the app? Simply because notifications aren't "off"?

If you sign off your facebook account from Facebook and Messenger, will it make sense for said apps to still give you notifications? Would it make sense for the messenger app to still give you access to new messages that pop up?

If you sign out from Snapchat, does it make sense that it still gives you notifications about new snaps? If your answer to this is yes, then that means that you can then click on the notifications and see the snaps.

If you want to talk about logic, then here's some for you.....

I have high expectations now.

His wife didn't give him permission to use her phone to call Uber to hook up with other people. But so what right? Well then, I guess if someone took your phone, used it schedule an Uber pickup, then returned your phone, and Uber let you know, then Uber should be in trouble for violating that person's privacy....right? Its the exact same argument after all.....

You didn't disappoint. Great job!


This guy. Thanks for giving me the chance of making my coworkers laugh.

[Bodakane]

I like how you're trying to defend that it wasn't a bug, when the article in fact says it was, and that Uber patched it.

It doesn't matter if its bug or not. You know how the bug doesn't affect anything? If you don't use someone else's phone. You know how else it doesn't happen? Turn off notifications.

This guy had numerous points to avoid this. At some point, people are responsible for their own bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Would his wife be okay with him turning off notifications for her apps, though? Huh.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You have the audacity to imply I'm stupid and know nothing about smartphones, then you turn around and give this drivel as some point of contention? Hahahahhahahahahahha. Yes, yes, forget for a moment you can turn off notifications for certain apps for a moment, you just pretended a guy that cheated on his wife, in part by using her phone, somehow cares if she's upset if he turns off a notification on her phone???!?!?!??! Hahahahhahahahahahhahaha. Talk about genius level...

You'd think my analogy is stupid until you read this:

Your analogy is stupid and there's a context to that email/calendar app analogy I made that you, of course, neglected.

You've obviously misunderstood something. That's okay, it's not the first time you've done so.

If you remove your account from said apps. Would it still make sense for said apps to feed you notifications about upcoming events from your calendar, that is no longer synced and connected to the app? Simply because notifications aren't "off"?

If you sign off your facebook account from Facebook and Messenger, will it make sense for said apps to still give you notifications? Would it make sense for the messenger app to still give you access to new messages that pop up?

If you sign out from Snapchat, does it make sense that it still gives you notifications about new snaps? If your answer to this is yes, then that means that you can then click on the notifications and see the snaps.

I didn't misunderstand anything. I did underestimate the depths of derp some will go to, though.

The first rule of internet security is to never log into anything personal from a machine that's not yours. You break that rule, it's your fault.

It's also time to talk about how "logging out" and removing your account are not the same thing.

I have high expectations now.

You didn't disappoint. Great job!

This guy. Thanks for giving me the chance of making my coworkers laugh.

Pretend like you have a job and if you did, that your coworkers would actually talk to you, all you want, there's nothing ridiculous about that analogy. It is literally one to one.

He didn't have permission to use her phone for that. Just like someone taking your phone doesn't have permission to use it for that. What's the fucking difference?

[Krastyn]

It doesn't matter if its bug or not. You know how the bug doesn't affect anything? If you don't use someone else's phone. You know how else it doesn't happen? Turn off notifications.

This guy had numerous points to avoid this. At some point, people are responsible for their own bullshit.

It actually completely matters if it was a bug or not. Just because he could have used his own phone does not give a software company cause to produce defective software. I guess by your logic car companies shouldn't recall vehicles, because if someone dies as a result, well they should have just used a different vehicle.

I agree he should accept responsibility for the cheating. But that doesn't absolve Uber.

[Bodakane]

It actually completely matters if it was a bug or not. Just because he could have used his own phone does not give a software company cause to produce defective software. I guess by your logic car companies shouldn't recall vehicles, because if someone dies as a result, well they should have just used a different vehicle.

I agree he should accept responsibility for the cheating. But that doesn't absolve Uber.

I'm not sure why people keep making inaccurate analogies, but the one you just gave is not a good one.

The husband did not have permission to use his wife's phone for that purpose. The husband gave up his privacy for that situation when he used someone else's phone against their wishes.

Again, if I told me doctor my address was your address and then he sent my medical records to you, can I sue him for violating my privacy? No. How is this different?