wp-plugin-hostgator
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source:https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2023\/04\/05\/uber-ola-gdpr-worker-data-access-rights-appeal\/<\/a><\/br> In a major win over opaque algorithmic management in the so-called gig economy an appeals court in the Netherlands has found largely in favor of platform workers litigating against ride-hailing giants Uber and Ola \u2014 judging the platforms violated the drivers\u2019 rights in a number of instances, including when algorithms were involved in terminating driver accounts.<\/p>\n The court also ruled the platforms cannot rely on trade secrets exemptions to deny drivers access to their data. Although challenges remain for regional workers to use existing laws to get enough visibility into platforms\u2019 data processing to know what information to ask for to be able to meaningfully exercise their data access rights.<\/p>\n The appeal court rulings can be found here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a> (in Dutch).<\/p>\n The appeal was brought by the not-for-profit data trust Worker Info Exchange (WIE) in support of members of the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) in the U.K. and a driver based in Portugal.<\/p>\n One case against Uber\u2019s robo-firings involved four drivers (three based in the U.K., one in Portugal); a second case against Uber over data access involved six U.K.-based drivers; while a data access case against Ola involved thee U.K.-based drivers.<\/p>\n In the data access cases drivers were seeking information such as passenger ratings, fraud probability scores, earning profiles, as well as data on the allocation of journeys to drivers \u2014 including Uber\u2019s batch matching and upfront pricing systems \u2014 as well as information about the existence of automated decision-making touching their work on the platforms.<\/p>\n Several decisions taken by the ride-hailing platforms were found to meet the relevant legal test of automated decision-making \u2014 including assigning rides; calculating prices; rating drivers; calculating \u2018fraud probability scores\u2019; and deactivating drivers\u2019 accounts in response to suspicions of fraud \u2014 meaning drivers are entitled to information on the underlying logic of these decisions. (And also to a right to meaningful human review if they object to decisions.)<\/p>\n \u201cThe court ordered that Uber must explain how driver personal data and profiling is used in Uber\u2019s upfront, dynamic pay and pricing system. Similarly, the court ordered Uber to transparently disclose how automated decision making and worker profiling is used to determine how work is allocated amongst a waiting workforce,\u201d said WIE in a press release<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cOla Cabs was also ordered to disclose meaningful information about the use in automated decision making of worker earnings profiles and so called \u2018fraud probability scores\u2019 used in automated decision making for work and fares allocation. The court also ruled that internally held profiles relating drivers and associated performance related tags must be disclosed to drivers.\u201d<\/p>\n Commenting in a statement, James Farrar, director of WIE, added:<\/p>\n This ruling is a huge win for gig economy workers in Britain and right across Europe. The information asymmetry & trade secrets protections relied upon by gig economy employers to exploit workers and deny them even the most basic employment rights for fundamentals like pay, work allocation and unfair dismissals must now come to an end as a result of this ruling. Uber, Ola Cabs and all other platform employers cannot continue to get away with concealing the controlling hand of an employment relationship in clandestine algorithms.<\/p>\n Too many workers have had their working lives and mental health destroyed by false claims of fraudulent activity without any opportunity to know precisely what allegations have been made let alone answer them. Instead, to save money and avoid their responsibility as employers, platforms have built unjust automated HR decision making systems with no humans in the loop. Left unchecked, such callous systems risk becoming the norm in the future world of work. I\u2019m grateful for the moral courage of the courts expressed in this important ruling.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The companies have been given two months to provide the requested information to the drivers (with the risk of fines of daily several thousand euros apiece for non-compliance), as well as being ordered to pick up the majority of the case costs.<\/p>\n Legal challenges against the algorithmic management practices of Uber and Ola were originally lodged on behalf of drivers in the U.K. back in 2020 \u2014 in July<\/a> and September<\/a> \u2014\u00a0centred on digital and data access rights enshrined in the European Union\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).<\/p>\n The pan-EU regulation provides individuals with rights to data held on them and information about algorithmic decision making applied to them \u2014 where it has a substantial or legal effect (such as employment\/access to work). And while the U.K. is no longer an EU member it transposed the European data protection framework into national law before leaving the bloc. Which means that (for now) it retains the same suite of data rights.<\/p>\n The appeal court decisions yesterday follow earlier judgements, in March 2021<\/a>, by the Court of Amsterdam \u2014 which did not accept the robo-firing charges in those instances and largely rejected the drivers\u2019 requests for specific data. However the court also tossed the platforms\u2019 arguments seeking to deny the right of workers to collectively organize their data and establish a data trust as an abuse of GDPR data access rights \u2014 leaving the door open to fresh challenges.<\/p>\n Transparency is a key lever in the fight for platform workers rights since there\u2019s no way for workers to assess the fairness of algorithms or automated decisions being applied to them without having access to information on the processes involved. So this ruling looks significant in that it could help crack open black boxes systems used for algorithmic management of workforces in a way that has, oftentimes, shielded platforms from scrutiny over the fairness (or indeed legality) of their decisions.<\/p>\n This is also a class of worker that still typically lacks full employment rights and protections, exacerbating the power imbalance vs data-mining platforms and supercharging the risks of worker exploitation. (Albeit, legal challenges in Europe have unpicked some bogus claims of self employment by platforms; while planned EU legislation in this area aims to tackle worker precariousness by setting minimum standards for platform work.)<\/p>\n While the legal challenges against Uber and Ola involved a small number of drivers, and the rulings naturally reference their individual circumstances, the appeal victory could force gig platforms to change their process \u2014 not least to avoid the risk of more challenges being filed.<\/p>\n Conditions of their licences to operate in markets like London may also create regulatory problems for them if they\u2019re seen to be failing to prevent recurrences of data protection issues, the litigants suggest.<\/p>\n Although it also may not yet be the end of the road for these particular cases as the companies could seek to appeal the decisions to the Dutch Supreme Court.<\/p>\n In a statement an Uber spokesperson told us it is \u201ccarefully\u201d studying the rulings, adding that it will take a decision on whether to file an appeal \u201cin due course\u201d.<\/p>\n (Ola was also contacted for comment but at the time of writing it had not responded.)<\/p>\n In other remarks provided to TechCrunch Uber said:<\/p>\n We are disappointed that the court did not recognize the robust processes we have in place, including meaningful human review, when making a decision to deactivate a driver\u2019s account due to suspected fraud. Uber<\/span> maintains the position that these decisions were based on human review and not on automated decision making, which was acknowledged earlier by the previous court. These rulings only relate to a few specific drivers from the UK that were deactivated in the period between 2018 and 2020 in relation to very specific circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Uber also flagged one instance in which it said the appeal court found it did have meaningful human involvement in an automated decision related to a termination.<\/p>\n In the other cases, where the court found in favor of the litigants over robo-firings, Uber was unable to prove that the human intervention was much more than a \u201csymbolic act\u201d \u2014 meaning it could not demonstrate the staff involved had been able to exercise a meaningful check on the automated decision that led to drivers being fired.<\/p>\n On this WIE<\/a> said the drivers in the lawsuit faced \u201cspurious allegations of \u2018fraudulent activity\u2019 by Uber and were dismissed without appeal\u201d. \u201cWhen the drivers requested an explanation for how Uber systems had surveilled their work and wrongly determined they had engaged in fraud, Uber stonewalled them,\u201d it claimed, adding: \u201cThe decision to dismiss the drivers was taken remotely at an Uber office in Krakow and the drivers were denied any opportunity to be heard. The court noted that Uber had failed to make \u2018clear what the qualifications and level of knowledge of the employees in question are. There was thus insufficient evidence of actual human intervention.’\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\nDrivers in Europe net big data rights win against Uber and Ola<\/br>
\n2023-04-05 21:52:56<\/br><\/p>\n\n
Taking the algorithm to court<\/h2>\n
\n