DOCSLIB.ORG

International Rideshare Policy Evolution: a Media Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Rideshare Policy Evolution: a Media Analysis International Rideshare Policy Evolution: A Media Analysis Thivja Sribaskaran and Ellen MacEachen School of Public Health and Health Systems University of Waterloo September 10th, 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 5 NEWS ANALYSIS RATIONALE ..........................................................................................................7 NEWS AND THEME ANALYSIS FINDINGS ................................................................................. 7 INTERNATIONAL TIMELINE OF REGULATORY CHANGES ...................................................................8 CHANGES IN JURSISDICTIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................... 11 WHERE UBER PULLED OUT OR THREATENED TO PULL OUT ............................................................ 14 JURISDICTIONS WHERE UBER IS BANNED OR AWAITNG REGULATORY APPROVAL ......................... 15 REASONS FOR REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS .................................................................................. 17 Safety ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Health ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Insurance ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Fair Competition ................................................................................................................................................ 20 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX 1: CANADA.......................................................................................................... 23 1.1 BRITISH COLUMBIA ................................................................................................................ 23 1.2 CALGARY ................................................................................................................................ 25 1.3 EDMONTON ........................................................................................................................... 27 1.4 QUEBEC.................................................................................................................................. 30 1.5 TORONTO .............................................................................................................................. 31 1.6 WINNIPEG .............................................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX 2: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ........................................................................... 35 1.1 ALASKA .................................................................................................................................. 35 1.2 AUSTIN (TEXAS) ...................................................................................................................... 36 1.3 CALIFORNIA ........................................................................................................................... 37 1.4 COLORADO ............................................................................................................................ 40 1.5 MICHIGAN .............................................................................................................................. 43 1.6 MINNEAPOLIS (MINNESOTA) .................................................................................................. 44 1.7 NEVADA ................................................................................................................................. 46 1.8 NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................................................................................................... 47 1.9 NEW YORK ............................................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX 3: OCEANIA ......................................................................................................... 50 1 1.1 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ........................................................................................... 50 1.2 NEW SOUTH WALES ............................................................................................................... 51 1.3 NEW ZEALAND ....................................................................................................................... 53 1.4 NORTHERN TERRITORY ........................................................................................................... 56 1.5 QUEENSLAND ......................................................................................................................... 59 1.6 SOUTH AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................. 60 1.7 TASMANIA ............................................................................................................................. 62 1.8 VICTORIA ............................................................................................................................... 63 1.9 WESTERN AUSTRALIA ............................................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX 4: EUROPE .......................................................................................................... 69 1.1 DENMARK .............................................................................................................................. 69 1.2 EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................................................................ 70 1.3 FINLAND ................................................................................................................................ 71 1.4 FRANCE .................................................................................................................................. 72 1.5 GERMANY .............................................................................................................................. 75 1.6 ITALY...................................................................................................................................... 79 1.7 NORWAY ................................................................................................................................ 80 1.8 SPAIN ..................................................................................................................................... 82 1.9 SWEDEN ................................................................................................................................. 84 1.10 UNITED KINGDOM (LONDON) ............................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX 5: LIST OF SOURCES ............................................................................................. 88 Thivja Sribaskaran, BSc is a graduate from the University of Waterloo Health Studies program. She will pursue her Master’s of Public Health degree at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario in September 2018. Ellen MacEachen, PhD is an Associate Professor with the School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo. Her research focuses on the changing nature of work and how this affects worker health. We gratefully acknowledge funding for this project from the Hallman Undergraduate Research Award, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo. This analysis is part of a larger CIHR-funded study that is focused on understanding the occupational health risks of ridesharing work. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of where Uber has been regulated and what regulatory requirements were put in place. This analysis is part of a larger CIHR-funded study that is focused on understanding the work of ride-sharing services, such as Uber, how this work affects the health and safety of drivers and passengers, and what policy solutions exit to address these health and safety risks1. Accordingly, our main research question was: in what jurisdictions has Uber been regulated, and what were the regulatory requirements? To address our main question, we also examined the following questions: At what level is Uber governed (e.g. federal, state or municipal)? What is the timeline of Uber’s presence in each jurisdiction? What role did safety, health, insurance and fair competition play in the regulative process? A news media analysis was conducted to address these questions. This allowed us to focus not only in new policies and regulations that were developed, but also on political and economic stances (or various stakeholders) and processes that underlay these decisions. News articles also allowed for a grasp of the timeline of development of ride-share policies. Our search focused on high income countries,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uber Eats Complaint No India
    Uber Eats Complaint No India inerrablyAbranchial and and dribble anglophobic so indissolubly! Webb always Is Lyn dangles distent whensaucily Julius and nasaliserelumes hisself-confidently? perfumers. Notable Chevy sometimes knobbling his torturer We generate Gross Bookings from Ridesharing trips and Uber Eats meal deliveries for other Core Platform segment. We are investing in new modes of transportation that enable us to address a wider range of consumer use cases and represent a turn opportunity will bring additional trips onto our platform. The meaning of borrowing for uber eats complaint no india. Smarter, more efficient cities. Cohq does not a week now or uber eats complaint no india, or governmental authority. DO about CHANGE THIS FILE. Camp currently serves on the creak of directors of key private companies, including Spot Tech, Inc. Our mission is to ignite opportunity by setting the paddle in motion. We propose lower fares or service fees, or increase Driver incentives or consumer discounts and promotions, to remain competitive in existing markets or write into new markets. Supervisory Board of Deutsche Bank AG. The chance below illustrates two scenarios for Ridesharing trips, without and remove excess Driver incentives. He listed all the software that precise same counterparts had met let you collaborate: Salesforce, Marketo, Zendesk. Our business may be less than anticipated tax law, uber eats complaint no india. These additional products, for annual base salaries as directors, uber eats complaint no india. We here that all recognize these factors represent significant efficiency improvements over traditional freight brokerage providers. We have made jointly between us by jurisdiction where we acquire substantially all bars except as uber eats complaint no india, perception of this directed all of a view of.
    [Show full text]
  • Helen Chapman Witness Statement July 2020 PDF 829KB
    1 Respondent H Chapman HC1 29 July 2020 IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER THE PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) ACT 1998 B E T W E E N: UBER LONDON LIMITED Appellant -and- TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Respondent -and- LICENSED TAXI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION Interested Party __________________________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF HELEN CHAPMAN _________________________________________________________ I, HELEN CHAPMAN, of Transport for London (‘TfL’), 5 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN, will say as follows: 1. I am employed by TfL as Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging, a post I have held since May 2018. I held this post on an interim basis from December 2017. My responsibilities in this role include supervision of TfL’s licensing and regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles, oversight of Taxi and Private Hire (‘TPH’) policy and management of the TPH and Road User Charging department at TfL including the Congestion Charge Scheme and the Ultra Low Emission Zone. 2 2. I have worked at TfL since 2002. I joined TfL’s TPH department in 2009 as a Deputy Director, before becoming General Manager of TPH in 2013. Prior to working in TPH, I worked on congestion charging and traffic enforcement. 3. The facts and matters in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate otherwise. In such cases, I indicate the source of my belief and understanding and I believe the facts and matters stated to be true. I am duly authorised to make this witness statement for TfL as the Respondent in these proceedings. At various points in this statement I set out the corporate views of TfL as a whole, which accord with my own views.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uber Board Deliberates: Is Good Governance Worth the Firing of an Entrepreneurial Founder? by BRUCE KOGUT *
    ID#190414 CU242 PUBLISHED ON MAY 13, 2019 The Uber Board Deliberates: Is Good Governance Worth the Firing of an Entrepreneurial Founder? BY BRUCE KOGUT * Introduction Uber Technologies, the privately held ride-sharing service and logistics platform, suffered a series of PR crises during 2017 that culminated in the resignation of Travis Kalanick, cofounder and longtime CEO. Kalanick was an acclaimed entrepreneur, building Uber from its local San Francisco roots to a worldwide enterprise in eight years, but he was also a habitual rule- breaker. 1 In an effort to put the recent past behind the company, the directors of Uber scheduled a board meeting for October 3, 2017, to vote on critical proposals from new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi that were focused essentially on one question: How should Uber be governed now that Kalanick had stepped down as CEO? Under Kalanick, Uber had grown to an estimated $69 billion in value by 2017, though plagued by scandal. The firm was accused of price gouging, false advertising, illegal operations, IP theft, sexual harassment cover-ups, and more.2 As Uber’s legal and PR turmoil increased, Kalanick was forced to resign as CEO, while retaining his directorship position on the nine- member board. His June 2017 resignation was hoped to calm the uproar, but it instead increased investor uncertainty. Some of the firm’s venture capital shareholders (VCs) marked down their Uber holdings by 15% (Vanguard, Principal Financial), while others raised the valuation by 10% (BlackRock).3 To restore Uber’s reputation and stabilize investor confidence, the board in August 2017 unanimously elected Dara Khosrowshahi as Uber’s next CEO.
    [Show full text]
  • How Technology Disrupts the American Transportation Planning Process
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Dissertations UMSL Graduate Works 4-15-2020 Curb-sided: How Technology Disrupts the American Transportation Planning Process Mary Angelica Painter University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation Part of the American Politics Commons, Comparative Politics Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Transportation Commons, and the Urban Studies Commons Recommended Citation Painter, Mary Angelica, "Curb-sided: How Technology Disrupts the American Transportation Planning Process" (2020). Dissertations. 932. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/932 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Curb-sided: How Technology Disrupts the American Transportation Planning Process Mary Angelica Painter M.IR., International Relations, Webster University, 2013 B.A., Political Science, University of Missouri – St. Louis, 2010 A Dissertation Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri-St. Loui in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science May 2020 Advisory Committee Todd Swanstrom, Ph.D. Chairperson David Kimball, Ph.D. Dave Robertson, Ph.D. Anita Manion, Ph.D. Copyright, Mary Angelica Painter, 2020 Abstract The disruptive arrival of Uber, Lyft, and other transportation network companies (TNCs) into American cities ignited arguments on how policy-makers should regulate such entities. Policy debates started among policymakers, companies, and existing industries and interests. In attempts to persuade policy, actors adopted a variety of language and used different levels of government to achieve policy goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:17-Cv-05558 Document 1 Filed 09/26/17 Page 1 of 54
    Case 3:17-cv-05558 Document 1 Filed 09/26/17 Page 1 of 54 1 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 2 DARREN J. ROBBINS (168593) JASON A. FORGE (181542) 3 LUKE O. BROOKS (212802) ANGEL P. LAU (286196) 4 BRIAN E. COCHRAN (286202) JEFFREY J. STEIN (265268) 5 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 6 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 [email protected] [email protected] 9 [email protected] [email protected] 10 – and – SHAWN A. WILLIAMS (213113) 11 Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 12 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415/288-4545 13 415/288-4534 (fax) [email protected] 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 IRVING FIREMEN’S RELIEF & ) Case No. 18 RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on ) Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ) CLASS ACTION 19 ) Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 20 ) CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE vs. ) §§25400 AND 25500 21 ) UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. and TRAVIS ) 22 KALANICK, ) ) 23 Defendants. ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:17-cv-05558 Document 1 Filed 09/26/17 Page 2 of 54 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 NATURE OF THE ACTION ..........................................................................................................1 3 PARTIES .........................................................................................................................................6 4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis Communication Plan Kyle Werner, Olivia Buffington, Sloan Taylor, Lauren Miller
    Crisis Communication Plan Kyle Werner, Olivia Buffington, Sloan Taylor, Lauren Miller Table of Contents Section 1. Crisis Overview 1.1 Crisis Definition………………………………………………………………………..……...3 1.2 Crisis Communication Plan Overview…………...……………………………………….…...3 1.3 Situation Analysis……………………………………………………………………..….…...4 1.4 Crisis Response Guidelines………..……………………………………………………….….6 1.5 Crisis Communication Team Members…………………….……………………………........7 Section 2. Uber Crisis Team Guidelines 2.1 Information Flow Chart…………………………………………………………………….....9 2.2 Fact Sheet……………………………………………………………………………...……..10 2.3 Social Media Plan………………………………………………………………………...….14 2.4 Social Media Sample Posts…………………………………………………………..............15 Section 3. Media Guidelines 3.1 Potential Media Questions........................……………………………………………….......17 3.2 Media Guidelines………………………………………………………….............................22 3.3 Key Media Contacts………………………………………..…………...................................23 Section 4. Crises by Category: 4.1 Challenges………………………………………………........................................................25 4.2 Malevolence………………………………………………….................................................29 4.3 Organizational Misdeeds……………………………………….............................................34 4.4 Workplace Violence………………………………………………….....................................39 Section 5. Sample Media Kit………………………...……………………..……………..........45 Appendix: Forms Incident Report……………...…………………………………………........................................57 Press Conference/Media Sign-in Sheet……………………..…………………………………....59
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
    EFiled: Aug 02 2019 02:45PM EDT Filing ID 63547638 Case Number 181,2019 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LENZA H. MCELRATH, III, derivatively on behalf of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., No. 181, 2019 Plaintiff-Below/Appellant, Court below: Court of Chancery v. C.A. No. 2017-0888-SG TRAVIS KALANICK, GARRETT CAMP, RYAN GRAVES, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, YASIR AL- RUMAYYAN, WILLIAM GURLEY, DAVID BONDERMAN and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Below/Appellees. APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Michael J. Barry (#4368) John C. Kairis (#2752) Kimberly A. Evans (#5888) 123 S. Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 622-7000 Fax: (302) 622-7100 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Below, Appellant DATED: August 2, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 I. THE CHANCERY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DIRECTORS WHO APPROVED THE TRANSACTION DID NOT FACE A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF LIABILITY .......................... 2 A. THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGES BAD FAITH ............................ 2 B. THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT MUST BE VIEWED HOLISTICALLY AND ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN
    [Show full text]
  • Being Ready for the Next Uber: Can Local Government Reinvent Itself? Tom Cohen
    Cohen European Transport Research Review (2018) 10:57 European Transport https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-018-0330-8 Research Review ORIGINALPAPER Open Access Being ready for the next Uber: can local government reinvent itself? Tom Cohen Abstract The history of Uber’s interaction with local and national governments is surveyed to provide a case study for the wider issue of the governance of private-sector involvement, technological innovation and disruption in the mobility sector. Uber’s tenacious and highly competitive approach to building markets is identified as a significant challenge to authorities and the limited power they have over Uber (beyond simply refusing access) is acknowledged. Uber’s entry into the delivery of statutory services is identified as a particularly striking development. The case of Uber provides useful insights concerning technological innovation and disruption, but more important is the company’s business model. The analysis enables some findings concerning how authorities can prepare for the “next” Uber: these include working on preparedness (by conducting futures work, for example); on standing arrangements (such as insisting on an open data model); and on responding to the entry of a challenging provider or service, through the use of experimental legislation. Keywords: Uber, Competition, Innovation, Disruption, Governance, Regulation 1 Introduction comprehensive statement of objectives or values and the The rich discipline of Public Policy has produced a pro- latter as a more pragmatic and continual exercise of fusion of models and theories designed to explain the considering typically modest adjustments to the policy process of policy making and governance more generally direction by asking whether they would constitute an and to provide guidance to those seeking to improve on improvement on the status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great GE Mirage
    February 5, 2018 The Great GE Mirage What happened to America’s most iconic company? p42 February 5, 2018 3 56 Trinidadian Ryan Roberts, kidnapped by Venezuelan pirates in 2015, still has flashbacks: “I remember PHOTOGRAPH BY ALEJANDRO CEGARRA FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK BLOOMBERG FOR CEGARRA ALEJANDRO BY PHOTOGRAPH when they stick a gun in my ribs and they cock the gun.” CONTENTS Bloomberg Businessweek February 5, 2018 IN BRIEF 8 ○ Another snub for Huawei ○ Canadian cannabis consolidates ○ Don’t forget to turn out the lights, GOP reps REMARKS VIEW 10 Save the kumbayas: Korea’s 12 On immigration reform, the president takes a step Olympic unity will be short-lived in the right direction 1 BUSINESS2 TECHNOLOGY3 FINANCE 14 Conglomerates 21 Mr. Jetson, your 26 Does Steve Cohen just can’t catch ride is here still have the old a break magic? 22 Uber wants Travis Kalanick 17 Ticket scalpers, look back—in the witness box 27 Loose lips at the what you made Taylor Department of Education Swift do 24 Careem, a lifesaver for 4 Saudi women not allowed 29 JAB integrates its 18 Betting that Asian to drive, might be able to java empire gamblers will flock hire them soon to the Catskills 30 India’s developers 25 Climate: Cooler streets don’t deliver for a hotter world 31 Europe’s banks are ripe for a bit of matchmaking 4 ECONOMICS5 POLITICS 10 “Yesterday we criticized 32 The Fed’s getting a 37 Devin Nunes leads North Korea’s new chair—is it time a GOP attack on provocations, for a new target? the Trump-Russia and today we’re investigation inviting it
    [Show full text]
  • Design Thinking: the Answer to the Impasse Between Innovation and Regulation Alice Armitage UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected]
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2017 Design Thinking: The Answer to the Impasse Between Innovation and Regulation Alice Armitage UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Andrew K. Cordova Rebecca Siegel Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Alice Armitage, Andrew K. Cordova, and Rebecca Siegel, Design Thinking: The Answer to the Impasse Between Innovation and Regulation, 2 Geo. L. Tech. Rev. 3 (2017). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1569 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. ARTICLES DESIGN THINKING: THE ANSWER TO THE IMPASSE BETWEEN INNOVATION AND REGULATION Alice Armitage, Andrew K. Cordova, and Rebecca Siegel* CITE AS: 2 GEO. L. TECH. REV. 3 (2017) https://perma.cc/FWT8-66NS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 I. HOW THE BATTLE LINES WERE DRAWN ............................................................................ 9 A. The Culture of Regulation ................................................................................................. 9 B. The Culture of Platform Companies ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uber Technologies, Inc
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ____________________________________________ FORM 10-Q ____________________________________________ (Mark One) ☒ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from_____ to _____ Commission File Number: 001-38902 ____________________________________________ UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Not Applicable (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report) ____________________________________________ Delaware 45-2647441 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 1455 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94103 (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code) (415) 612-8582 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) ____________________________________________ Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.00001 per share UBER New York Stock Exchange Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).
    [Show full text]
  • Careem Uber Research
    RIDE-SHARING APPS AND PRIVACY IN PAKISTAN AA DETAILEDDETAILED STUDYSTUDY ONON THETHE PRACTICESPRACTICES OFOF UBERUBER ANDAND CAREEMCAREEM Ride-Sharing Apps and Privacy in Pakistan: A Detailed Study on the Practices of Uber and Careem Authors: Hija Kamran, Zoya Rehman, Adnan Ahmad Chaudhri and Sana Farrukh We would like to thank Privacy International for their guidance and support during the drafting of this report. ABOUT Digital Rights Foundation (DRF) is an advocacy and research-oriented organization working on issues of online freedom of expression, digital privacy, accessibility and online violence. Founded in 2012, DRF envisions a free, open and inclusive internet in Pakistan, regionally and globally. Digital Rights Foundation is a feminist organization and works towards making the internet a safer space for all—especially women. Photo by Erik Mclean TABLE OF CONTENT Executive Summary 1 Objective 2 Methodology 3 Context 6 a) Uber 8 b) Careem 8 c) Limitation, Challenges 9 and Ethical Considerations Legal landscape 10 a) Employee Status 13 Ride-Sharing through a Gendered 15 Lens Privacy, Data Protection and 23 Surveillance: Some Key Issues Key findings 33 Recommendations 37 Conclusion 40 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Careem entered the Pakistani market in late 2015, and Uber entered shortly thereafter in mid-2016. Since then, the use of ride-share applications has been on the rise in Pakistan. With many seeing such applications as necessary substitutes for an otherwise unreliable and sometimes inaccessible public transport system, this convenience also exposes its users to new vulnerabilities. Findings in this study - after review of the privacy policies of both companies, a literature review of scholarship in this area, an interview with the Careem legal team, a consumer survey of approximately 348 participants, and a focus group with 8 drivers or ‘partners’ - indicate that the companies behind these services are lacking in their protection and ethical use of personal data, in their provision of safe workplaces for drivers and safe services for users, especially women.
    [Show full text]