Imagine being out with friends and using a ride-sharing app to get to your next destination. During the ride, you engage in casual conversation, somewhat aware that your privacy isn’t guaranteed in a stranger’s car, but feeling comfortable enough to chat. Once you arrive, you receive a text message containing a full transcript of your conversation.
This scenario is not fictional for Anvi Ahuja, a Lyft user from Toronto. Upon receiving the transcript, she called the number that texted her, only to encounter an automated “not available” message, which she presumed was from Lyft. Naturally, she was upset.
When she called Lyft later that evening, she learned that the company was conducting a pilot program to record and transcribe conversations for a centralized database. However, subsequent communication from Lyft stated that it was the driver who recorded the conversation without consent, and the company promised to take “proper actions” in response. The troubling aspect of this incident isn’t the mere fact that a customer was recorded; many ride-share vehicles are equipped with dashcams that capture the interior.
Conversations in a vehicle may feel private, but the driver is running a business and recording for safety reasons can be justified. The more concerning issue arises from the transcription process, particularly since it seemed to originate from within Lyft. Ahuja remarked to the CBC that “ride-sharing apps are big companies, and people have sensitive conversations within cabs believing they are secure.”
Lyft has confirmed to Ahuja and the CBC that it is piloting a program to record and transcribe conversations, but these transcriptions were purportedly intended only for reference in security matters. They clarified this program is limited to certain US markets and involves opt-in protocols for drivers. It remains unclear how the driver or anyone else obtained Ahuja’s transcript and contacted her.
Lyft stated that communication should occur via masked numbers, preventing drivers from accessing customers’ personal phone numbers. Ahuja’s case raises serious questions about privacy and consent, especially since Canadian law requires patrons to be informed about recordings in public places, typically via signage, which allegedly was absent in her situation.