Los Angeles leaders acted appropriately when they suspended Uber’s permit to rent out scooters and electric bicycles through subsidiary Jump company, according to a ruling issued Feb. 10.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation suspended the rentals after Uber refused to provide its riders’ trip data in real-time due to privacy concerns.
The company plans to appeal the ruling from hearing officer David Shapiro, according to an LA Times report.
“We have been clear for months that we have serious privacy concerns about LADOT’s requirements to collect real-time, individual trip data on our riders in Los Angeles,” Uber spokesman Davis White told the LA Times in a Feb. 11 article. “We believe that best in class data aggregation methods could deliver LADOT near-real-time data — while protecting the identity of Los Angeles residents and our riders.”
Shapiro concluded that the LADOT correctly halted Uber’s permit since the company violated data submission rules. The transportation department has rules that require companies like Uber to provide trip data as part of their one-year operating permits.
“The data that [LADOT] wanted, Uber considers to be too personally-identifying and they are not willing to give it,” Attorney John Doherty, said, who is the principal of the Doherty Law Group. “What’s interesting, California has been at the forefront of protecting data from government entities unless there’s a warrant or something along those lines.”
Shapiro’s decision, at least for now, upholds LADOT’s data reporting requirements.
In a statement to the LA Times, Connie Llanos supported the ruling, saying it “upholds the city’s common sense permit requirements, designed to protect safety and quality of life for local residents.”
The Transportation Department uses the data to ensure companies are following the permit rules. The department can track where scooters and vehicles are parked and what routes are taken.
The permit program also applies to other companies such as Lyft and Lime.
Doherty said his law firm has concerns over whether LADOT’s data collection program violates regulations.
“This is a specific government entity that wants to know where you’re going and when,” he said. “I think it’s unclear why the level of detail LADOT is requesting, where’s that benefit? The aggregate data Uber would share provides a lot of useful information that would get to the point of what LADOT wants.”
He also noted that LADOT’s system could be vulnerable to a cyber-attack, which has happened to many government institutions over the last year. Public schools, most recently, across the country have been victims of ransomware, locking their systems until a fee is paid.
“I don’t I don’t think even if LADOT isn’t going to do any questionable analysis with the information they get, they could be breached, a target of cyber-attacks,” he said.