Uber's Persistent Location Tracking and 'God View' Abuse
Investigation into Uber's history of excessive location tracking, internal tool abuse by employees, and the company's resistance to limiting its access to rider location data.
Unlock Full Privacy Intelligence
Get deep-dive reports on every company that touches your data. SeekerPro members see breach timelines, DSAR success rate...
Learn MoreAudit Your Site Free
Run a full privacy and compliance audit on any website in 60 seconds. NexusBro scans cookie consent, tracker behavior, a...
Learn MoreAutomate Privacy Compliance
Stop wasting hours on manual DSAR filings and cookie consent management. BliniBot handles the busywork so your team can ...
Learn MoreKey Findings
- #1'God View' reportedly used to track journalists and non-business targets
- #2Former security chief convicted for covering up 2016 breach of 57 million records
- #3'Greyball' tool used to identify and evade law enforcement officers
- #4FTC issued 20-year consent decree for privacy and security misrepresentations
- #5Employee access to rider location data reportedly lacked adequate controls
Investigation Details
According to reports, Uber's 'God View' tool was reportedly used by employees to track the locations of journalists, ex-partners, and public figures without business justification. A former Uber security chief, Joe Sullivan, was convicted in 2022 for covering up a 2016 data breach that exposed 57 million rider and driver records. Uber reportedly used a tool called 'Greyball' to identify and evade law enforcement officers investigating the service in cities where it operated without authorization. The FTC issued a 20-year consent decree against Uber in 2017 for misrepresenting its privacy and data security practices, including the extent of employee access to rider data.
uber has been the subject of increasing scrutiny over its location tracking practices. Privacy researchers and regulatory bodies across multiple jurisdictions have documented concerns about how the company handles user data, particularly regarding consent, transparency, and data minimization principles. The findings suggest a pattern of prioritizing business metrics over user privacy, a trend observed across the broader technology industry. Users affected by these practices have limited recourse without proactive intervention such as filing formal complaints with data protection authorities or submitting DSAR requests.
Regulatory responses have varied significantly. European data protection authorities have been more aggressive in enforcement under GDPR, while US enforcement remains fragmented across state-level privacy laws. The investigation highlights the need for stronger federal privacy legislation and more transparent corporate data practices. Affected users should consider reviewing their privacy settings, submitting data deletion requests, and exploring privacy-preserving alternatives recommended by independent researchers.
Related Scandals
Take Action
Protect Your Data Across Every Platform
Tools trusted by thousands of privacy-conscious users worldwide
No card charged today. Cancel anytime.
Frequently Asked Questions
What data does uber collect?
Our investigation reveals uber engages in location tracking. Investigation into Uber's history of excessive location tracking, internal tool abuse by employees, and the company's resistance to limiting its access to rider location data.
Is uber's location tracking legal?
The legality of uber's practices varies by jurisdiction. Under GDPR, companies must have a lawful basis for data processing. Under CCPA, California residents can opt out of data sales.
How can I protect myself from uber?
You can submit a data subject access request (DSAR) to uber, opt out of data collection through their privacy settings, or use privacy-preserving alternatives.