This investigation shows that the global company Uber has broken Jordanian law, by drivers who work for the company violating the privacy of passengers. They have done this by installing cameras in their vehicles and filming passengers without their permission or knowledge.
He checks the phone in front of him, after seeing a signal that a customer nearby is waiting for a cab. “Mohammed” (not his real name), a taxi driver who works with the Uber app, has to stop his internet connection to do an interview with our investigation team. A camera is mounted on the car windscreen, just below the rear-view mirror. Mohammed says, “This camera records round the clock… everything is recorded.”
Mohammed explains that, when he bought his car, the camera was already fitted. But, after having some problems, he put in another one, similar to one his friends had. He says that, at the end of the day, they have all had to install cameras.
Through social media there has been a proliferation across the world in material of Uber filmed passengers during journeys. Some of these leaked videos recorded by those devices capture both audio and video. This has upset many users/passengers of the Uber app. But Mohammed says that what motivated him to start using a camera were situations where he felt in danger.
At ten o’clock one evening Mohammed received a request to go to somewhere close by what he describes as a “deserted place” near the area of Sahab, in southeast Amman. In the course of the journey, Mohammed suspected that his passenger was carrying a weapon. At a certain point, fearing to go further into an uninhabited area – about eleven kilometres from the centre of the capital, Amman – he asked the passenger to get out of the car. At first, he refused and verbally abused Mohammed. Eventually he did get out and Mohammed then sped off without even waiting to collect his fare.
Mohammed sent to Uber the videos he had recorded on the in-car camera, saying: “The videos are of the roads and the streets I drove along, and the rest is an audio recording of what was said.” According to Mohammed, this was the only time he received compensation from Uber for the fare he lost.
Mohammed is one of five thousand drivers who work “for” Uber. They discuss the issues and questions they have on social networking sites, because there is no official umbrella group to bring them together.
This investigation team made one hundred trips using the Uber app in areas of the capital and also in Zarqa, Salt, and Madaba in Jordan, but most were in the capital Amman. It emerged that 12 percent of cars are fitted with internal cameras, while other have cameras fitted externally, which can at the same time record sound from inside the car.
On a trip from Salt to Amman, we met “Jamil Ahmed” (not his real name), who made no attempt to hide the fact that he was using an in-car camera. We asked how afraid he was of being stopped by the police and having his car impounded (as filming is not allowed inside the car). He said he would prefer that to being arrested on suspicion of “harassment.”
Yousef Al-Jabari, who works in a car accessories store, says that these cameras are widely used. Some film the road in front, some the rear of the car, and there are also cameras that record audio and video of what is going on inside the vehicle. Some, he says, are difficult to spot as they are so small. And all of them record the sound inside the car, even those that are fitted to film outside the car.
Mahmoud Al-Yazouri, who works in selling cameras through his Facebook page, says that drivers in general are increasingly open to buying and installing cameras, and those drivers using apps (or work through an App employer like Uber and Kareem) are the most likely to do so. This is to both avoid theft, and to document any offensive behaviour, either by the driver or the passenger who is booked through the App.
So far there has been only one legal case recorded against an Uber driver, who filmed girls during a journey and then circulated the videos to a group of drivers on WhatsApp. The authorities were able to arrest the driver, who had made indecent comments while filming the girls on his cell phone.
Salah Jaber, a lawyer, says that photographing and filming inside private hire vehicles is a violation of privacy. The law clearly states that eavesdropping and snooping is a crime that merits punishment: “When someone gets into a vehicle, they feel they are in a private and safe place. If they make a call, for example, or have a conversation with someone else in the car, no one else has the right to record, document or publish it. The law punishes anyone who does so.”
“Anyone who violates the privacy of others by eavesdropping or snooping, whether this be by means of audio recording, taking pictures, or using binoculars, shall be punished, based on the complaint of the aggrieved party, by imprisonment for a period of not less than six months and a fine of two hundred dinars. The penalty shall be doubled in the event of a second offence.”
Salah Jaber makes a distinction between the way Uber cars use their cameras and those of the public transport vehicles, both inside and outside the vehicle. “On public transport, specifically express buses, the state fits internal cameras. But these cameras on public buses are owned by the state. And the state monitors and regulates the work of drivers – their work hours and the routes they take. The driver has no right to manipulate these cameras, unlike cameras in taxi cars working with smart apps (employers like Uber).”
According to Abla Washah, spokeswoman for the Ministry of Transport, there are currently four companies apps licensed for passenger transport. “Smart apps for transporting passengers are new in Jordanian society. In the beginning, these types of apps were being used illegally.”
When Uber started operating in Jordan in 2015, it did so despite having no license until 2018. According to Washah, the increasing demand for this mode of transport prompted the Jordanian authorities to license these apps to make it easier for people to travel. The Jordanian parliament therefore set up a land transport system for smart apps. Uber meanwhile says that it operates a digital platform that connects drivers and passengers and is not a transport company.
Uber allows drivers to install and use video cameras to record passengers for purposes of safety.
Please note that local laws and regulations may require individuals using recording equipment in vehicles to disclose to passengers that they are being recorded in or around a vehicle and to obtain their consent.
Please check local regulations in your city to make sure of the relevant legal position.
from the Uber website
On its website, Uber encourages drivers to install cameras as a measure – according to the company – which makes journeys safer and helps resolve disputes. But it does also require drivers to comply with instructions and regulations in force in their own countries.
We spoke to a “special source” who worked at Uber for three years, during which he became familiar with the company’s activities in dozens of countries. He told us that Uber’s compliance with the law is controversial – at first it start operating in violation of local laws, but then, when it becomes in demand and expands (its operations), it starts complying with the law at a minimum level.
According to this “special source”, Uber initially promises drivers good job opportunities and greater income. But once it has obtained a license in the country in which it operates, these dreams are dispelled. He says that the company then starts to increase the deductions it makes from the fares of drivers, who finds themselves facing an uncertain future: “Despite my reservations about drivers installing cameras, I understand why they do it. They have no voice and no platform to appeal to … no one sees them.”
Many drivers we met while compiling this report said that Uber provides them with no “protection” at all, and that evidence from the camera therefore gives them a weapon that they can use to protect themselves. The fears that drivers have, are not only about legal disputes and claims and loss of earnings. What worries them most is losing their job with the company, after they have invested in paying for a license. Some have even taken out long-term loans to buy their cars.
“Hussein” (not his real name) began working as an Uber driver after the company had obtained its operating license in 2018. But he was suspended from work for over a year, after a female passenger made a complaint that he has harassed her. According to his account, the company blocked him immediately.
Hussein’s story
Hussein says that the company puts the interests of the passenger before those of the driver. “In general, any passenger who makes a complaint against a driver, this driver is usually suspended … just like that. They don’t go back to the driver, they straight away believe the client and put the driver out of work.”
The spokesman for the Unified Committee of Smart Transport Applications, Lawrence Al-Rifai, represents about five thousand Uber drivers, and roughly 13 thousand drivers working on a variety of other apps. Al-Rifai worked with Uber before it obtained its license in Jordan. Describing that period as: “in those days we were drawn in, but we fell into the snare.”
The spokesman for the Unified Committee of Smart Transport Applications, Lawrence Al-Rifai, points out that the financial return for drivers in the beginning was higher than it is now, and the percentage of company deductions were lower. It was this that prompted Al-Rifai to take out a bank loan to buy a car. But he says that before long the “honeymoon” period with the company came to an end, as the number of service providers in each company had reached five thousand.
Al-Rifai is trying informally to make the voice of drivers heard by the authorities. He is calling for a reduction in the rate of company deductions from the income of drivers, which has reached over 20 percent, and for prolonging the operational life of the cars.
On the question of drivers being blocked, Al-Rifai says that the company never looks into complaints from customers and straight away suspends drivers, in spite of the financial burden they bear from instalments owed to the bank and other obligations.
Legal expert Salah Jaber says that the driver can submit recordings as evidence in court, provided that they have been made legally and that an expert has been called in to transcribe them. “But whatever evidence is provided in such a case, this does not stop the other party from making a subsequent complaint,” he says.
Uber classifies drivers as partners, not employees, and says it is merely acting as intermediary between them and passengers. It thereby denies any responsibility for drivers’ action and behaviour. However, legal expert Salah Jaber insists that the company bears some degree of responsibility. If it finds out that drivers have installed cameras inside their cars, it should warn them to turn them off.
We turned to the Land Transport Regulatory Commission (LTRC) to find out about its role in monitoring service providers working with smart apps. LTRC media spokeswoman Dr Abla Washah said that the commission was not concerned with “driver behaviour and morals,” but only with ensuring that companies use their regulatory systems to provide an appropriate level of service.
Washah said that the LRTC had no legal power to stop drivers fitting cameras in cars. “The cars used to provide this service are privately owned. The driver may have ten to fifteen passengers a day in his car, and each one will behave differently. The driver may be subject to abuse and so takes steps to protects himself.”
The LTRC spokeswoman said that the commission had not received any complaints over the installation of cameras, but that if any such complaints were forthcoming, the issue of cameras inside cars would be reviewed from a legislative standpoint.
The LTRC issued instructions in late 2017 to regulate the transporting of passengers using smart apps. It made clear that an amended Article 5, placed the responsibility on the licensed company for the behaviour and ethical conduct of service providers. The company would be responsible for “following up the performance of the service provider and would bear responsibility for his actions and behaviour, and for any damages resulting from them during the period of service provision.”
We went to Uber’s headquarters in the capital, Amman, to confront the company with what our investigation had uncovered regarding breaches of passenger privacy by the use of external and internal cameras by Uber drivers. The official there told us that the Jordan office was only a support office and that he was not authorized to answer our questions. But he did provide us with contact information for Uber offices in Egypt.
Lawrence Al-Rifai, the spokesman for the Unified Committee for Smart Transport Applications, says that they have repeatedly called for the installation of cameras in cars, but these requests have been turned down. Al-Rifai believes installing cameras should be allowed, provided that every passenger is notified that there is “surveillance camera.” He accuses the company of ignoring the demands of drivers and neglecting to provide them with protection.
We sent an email letter to Uber asking officials about the use of in-car cameras by its drivers, a violation of the privacy of users of these apps. But as of the date of publication of this report, we have received no response
To read the investigation in Dutch, click here.
This report was completed with the support of ARIJ
