Uber and the “God View” Scandal
A Case Study
Over the past decade, Uber has been steadily earning a reputation as an organization that lives side-by-side among controversy. From controversial remarks made by CEO Travis Kalanick, to sexual assault allegations against drivers, there has been no lack of scandalous stories in relation to the somehow-still-thriving ride-sharing company.
The Issue
Beginning as early as September 2011, Uber became the center of controversial headlines when they debuted a new tool known as “God View”, a one-sided feature that allows app administrators and other corporate employees to track all of the Ubers within a given location or city, along with silhouettes of Uber users waiting for their car to show up. This tool also gave the company the ability to track different cars and view personal information about their drivers.
In June 2014, the FTC was investigating Uber for the technology misuse by employees. Samuel Ward Spangenberg, Uber’s former forensic investigator, made a statement in an October 2016 court hearing that the tool was used at times to pinpoint the locations of various celebrities, politicians, and even for personal inquiries related to romantic interests. The employees caught using the software without permission were fired, according to Spangenburg.
In November 2014, a story surfaced on Buzzfeed reporting that Uber used the same tool to track one of their reporters. This caught the attention and action of the New York attorney general, who wrote a letter of concern since it could potentially compromise users’ right to privacy.
The same year, Uber faced issues related to a data breach that revealed some information of their drivers, and for five months they had to contact those drivers and the state of New York. The attorney general also saw this as a failure on Uber’s part to inform those affected in the “most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”
Uber’s Responses
As a result of these issues, Uber received a $20,000 fine and took the situation as a wake-up call in order to voice to the public the amount of importance they place on privacy. An Uber spokesperson made this statement:
"We are deeply committed to protecting the privacy and personal data of riders and drivers. "We are pleased to have reached an agreement with the New York Attorney General that resolves these questions and makes clear our commitment to best practices that put our community first."
The same month more specific reports regarding the Buzzfeed controversy emerged that Uber launched its own internal investigation into the same incident. New York general manager Josh Mohrer allegedly violated Uber’s privacy policy by using God View to track a reporter named Johana Bhuiyan, and when he met with her to do an interview disclosed that he knew where she was before the meeting even happened.
A short time later Uber published a blog post on its website with its privacy policies and other related information listed for all to view. More specifically, their statement was:
“We have a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver's data. The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes. Our policy has been communicated to all employees and contractors."
Comparison to the Book’s Practices
Timothy Coombs (2018) mentions in Chapter 7 of his textbook Ongoing Crisis Communication that responses should be quick enough to keep up with media reports. I believe in the case of the data breach crisis, Uber could have benefited from this advice due to their slow response time. If they had acted more quickly, it likely would have given off the impression that Uber is a proactive organization that sincerely cares about the safety and security of its employees and users.
Relation to Real Life
I chose to analyze Uber in the context of crisis communication practices because I noticed that almost every year they would be in the headlines for a new controversy, and each time it seemed like they either brushed it off with brief statements or barely acknowledged the situation at all. Their stakeholders didn't seem to be a priority for them until the situations reached their peak each time, especially in the case of the data breach.
A lesson I learned from this case study is that whenever there is controversy or evidence that comes to light within your organization, taking the appropriate amount of action is better than no action at all. Another is that when there is no other action left other than to apologize and take responsibility, make sure the sincerity and desire to correct the mistake is included as well.
Sources:
Coombs, W. T. (2018). Origins of crisis communication Fifth Edition
https://privacy.uber.com/policy
https://www.businessinsider.com/ubers-new-york-manager-investigated-for-using-god-view-2014-11
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/uber-travis-kalanick-scandal-pr-disaster-timeline