Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > GDPR rules ban decisions made solely by computer algorithms when they have a significant impact on people’s lives, such as on employment, saying such decisions require meaningful human review and a way to challenge a decision.
The law Uber broke. I can’t believe they found it that difficult to follow something as simple as that.
by tchalla - Some of you might have read the short story Lena by qntm [0], which is about brain uploading and the effective enslavement of the uploaded once their humanity is hidden behind an API. That story is actually about the gig economy [1].
Of course having a dishonest Uber driver is annoying, but I think that has nothing on getting suspended or fired by an automated system.
by qnleigh - So according to the regulator Uber automatically suspended driver accounts that were flagged in decision of fraud or due to low ratings. They also failed to inform drivers about the automated decision making.
Here is the statement from the Dutch data protection authority:
Reference to the law that was broken (GDPR): [2][3]Uber made fully automated decisions regarding drivers. In cases of suspected fraud or excessively low customer ratings, driver accounts were automatically temporarily deactivated or, in the case of persistently low ratings, permanently deactivated. As a result, their income from Uber ceased during the deactivation period. Uber thereby violated the ban on fully automated decision-making under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The AP also found that Uber failed to adequately inform drivers about the automated decision-making. Uber has since ceased the violations.
[1]: https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/actueel/uber-krijg...Article 22.1: The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. Article 13.2f: In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with the following further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing: [...] the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4) and, at least in those cases, meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.by molf - I am curious, if the algorithm provided the recommendation and a person had to say agree or disagree for each would that be against the law?
Uber may want to reconsider operating in the Netherlands- would be surprised if they get this much in profit from this region. Unfortunately for them these laws are EU wide.
- This is likely more than Uber's entire Netherlands annual revenue, I think.by loeg
- We’ve gotta normalize linking to the underlying ruling. Uber says they didn’t automate any permanent suspensions and the regulator says they did; how can anyone interpret this story without more information on how the regulator determined this?
- > Uber temporarily suspended accounts of some drivers who were suspected of fraud, including when its systems concluded drivers had taken unnecessary detours to inflate fares or accepted trips without intending to complete them
Regardless of how Uber did it, these kind of drivers should be removed from the platform. This happened to me more than once. It’s quite frustrating as an example you want to get to airport and a driver has accepted your request, but you can see in the app the vehicle doesn’t move. One time this happened for all requests on Uber when I wanted to go to airport early morning and had to switch to Bolt