What is currently driving the ride-sharing sector?

Anyone who has ever used a ride-sharing service (such as BlaBlaCar, Ola or Bolt… or, of course, Uber and Lyft) but isn’t involved in the traffic management or smart mobility sectors, might never given a second thought to how the system works, why it works like that and that there might be some contentious, even controversial elements at work. Typically, users see the icon of a car approaching their location on their smartphone’s map, confirm their name, get in and begin the journey. 

This does not necessarily apply to anyone reading this article, naturally as what Intertraffic content readers are more interested in is what are those aforementioned contentious policies in ride-sharing (and ride-hailing) platforms and what broader implications do they have for the future of urban mobility as a whole? 

So what are those contentious policies in ride-sharing (and ride-hailing) platforms and what do broader implications do they have for the future of urban mobility as a whole? 

Ask the experts and they all have similar ripostes. To make this an easier read, here are the top three topics, the top three bones of contention, in ascending order: 1) Privacy; 2) Privacy; and 3) Privacy. 

Personal space

Ride-sharing can be a privacy nightmare since the single biggest reason for the rise of the personal automobile has been a guarantee of non-interaction in a close private space. 
Being able to fulfill a trip on a flexible schedule is perhaps the single biggest reason for buying a private vehicle. 
Of course, the expectations of privacy on a public highway or street are indeed limited, but in a famous case brought by the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the organisation challenged Government collection of New York State EZ-Pass toll data, which could have been used to prove tax residency. 

How can you be sure that your movements are private and won’t subject you to an avalanche of advertising? What if someone is able to see where you went, which may have real safety consequences in many contexts?

So, how can you be sure that your movements are private and won’t subject you to an avalanche of advertising? What if someone is able to see where you went… and could this have real safety consequences?
Even more ominous, and a most contentious sub-issue are what are called “reverse location warrants”, where the Police can search to see who was in an area where a crime was committed or even just suspected to be committed. 
GeoFencing warrants are often referred to as “reverse location warrants” and allow law enforcement officers to collect data from devices that were within a certain area during a specific time frame. This method has become increasingly popular for solving crimes but also raises privacy concerns. 
Admittedly, mobile phones already confer this risk and technically there is no effective “extra danger” with ride-sharing, but the perception of real danger is nonetheless there. 
“The only way to ease these concerns is a comprehensive system of mystified transactions that separate the customer’s specific details from the larger data pool,” explains ride-sharing expert Eric Masaba. “This is a type of ‘zero knowledge’ protocol which means that the provider who fulfils the ride must never be able to keep any specific customer data.”

The only way to assuage these concerns is a comprehensive system of mystified transactions separating the customer’s specific details from the larger data pool

Demystifying ride-sharing

Think about that last statement for a few seconds: the only real way to make this work and increase customer flow is a neutral platform which is used to connect customers to their ride, but the transport provider at the end of it cannot and can never know who the specific customer is.  
“This already happens with fingerprints on devices, says Masaba. “The fingerprint never leaves, or should never leave, the device and the end user of the authentication information can still be sure they are transacting with someone without holding that sensitive fingerprint information. As counterintuitive as this might sound from a business point of view there’s a very famous example of how it works. It’s actually the basis of how Google operated in its early days and it certainly gave venture capitalists some pause for thought. ‘Did you just say that your business model is to send customers away?’ And the answer is yes, they did.”

As counterintuitive as it sounds the very basis of Google in its early days gave venture capitalists pause for thought. ‘Did you just say that your business model is to send customers away?’

However, when we start to look at more broad categories of city road space management, this becomes perhaps the only way a fair system could work. A public commons platform that is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory that every transport firm (bus company, train company, tram operator, ride share group and so on) has equal access to. Now that really would be a contentious turn of events – but how would it work?

Here’s how it could work

Newcomers to a city could buy truly anonymous tokens (which are as anonymous as cash) to use their choice of transport system in the locale. The whole point is to make sure that transport providers can definitely get paid but can give the customer (from wherever) some certainty of anonymity – and true anonymity, unlike the vast majority of travel cards.
Usage patterns can still be ascertained, of course, but the raw data is fully protected. This begins to make the transport systems in any city part of a broader operating system and the individual user data are like encrypted packets, decipherable only by that user. 
Let’s imagine, then, that the “Here’s how it could work” heading above actually read “Here’s how it works” and it that it wasn’t just a great idea but the basis of the world’s most popular ride-sharing app. So let’s try that again.

Here’s how it works

Purchase of Tokens: Newcomers and residents can buy tokens through various methods such as vending machines, kiosks, or online platforms. These tokens can be used across different transport services, including buses, trains, ride-sharing, and taxis. 
Anonymity Assurance: These tokens function like cash, ensuring that no personal data is attached to the transactions. This setup provides users with the certainty that their travel details are not being tracked. 
Encrypted Transactions: When tokens are used, the transaction data is encrypted. Only the transport provider can access the payment confirmation, not the user’s identity or travel details. 
Data Protection: Usage patterns and aggregate data can still be collected for improving services and city planning. However, the raw data remains fully protected and anonymised, ensuring individual privacy is maintained. 

Advantages of the Token System 

Enhanced Privacy: By decoupling user identity from travel data, this system addresses significant privacy concerns. Users can travel without fear of their movements being tracked or misused. 
Data Security: Encrypted transactions ensure that even if data breaches do occur, the sensitive user information remains protected and indecipherable. 
Fair Access: A neutral platform, accessible to all transport providers, ensures fair competition and prevents any single entity from monopolizing user data. 
User Confidence: Providing a privacy-centric approach can increase user trust and adoption of public transport and ride-sharing services. 

By decoupling user identity from travel data, this system addresses significant privacy concerns. Users can travel without fear of their movements being tracked or misused

Broader Implications for Urban Mobility 

Integration into a City Operating System: This token-based system can be integrated into a broader city operating system. Such a system would manage various urban functions, including transport, utilities and public services, while ensuring user data remains encrypted and protected. 
Smart City Development: By using anonymised data, cities can still benefit from insights into transport usage patterns without compromising individual privacy. This information can help in planning and optimising urban infrastructure. 
Future-Proofing Privacy: As cities become smarter and more connected, ensuring robust privacy measures from the outset can prevent future misuse of data and build a foundation of trust between residents and city administrations. 

Implementation Challenges and Considerations 

Infrastructure Costs: Setting up the necessary infrastructure for anonymous token systems and encrypted transactions might involve significant initial costs. 
Regulatory Support: Governments and city authorities need to support and regulate such systems to ensure they are implemented effectively and ethically. 
Technology Adoption: Ensuring that all transport providers adopt and integrate this system seamlessly can be challenging and requires cooperation across the industry. 

Urban mobility can be transformed into a more secure, private and user-friendly ecosystem, encouraging wider adoption of public and shared transportation methods

By implementing such a system, urban mobility can be transformed into a more secure, private and user-friendly ecosystem, encouraging wider adoption of public and shared transport methods. 
Rightful concerns about being tracked and details of one’s location being fed back to ‘the Government’ are handled with truly anonymised tokenisation. Prevention of monopolisation of users’ data is therefore handled by the system. 
Does that sound like a particularly contentious ride-sharing policy?