RIDE-SHARING APPS AND

PRIVACY IN PAKISTAN
A DETAILED STUDY ON THE PRACTICES
OF UBER AND CAREEM
 Ride-Sharing Apps and Privacy in Pakistan:
A Detailed Study on the Practices of Uber and Careem

Authors:
Hija Kamran, Zoya Rehman, Adnan Ahmad Chaudhri and Sana Farrukh

We would like to thank Privacy International for their guidance and

support during the drafting of this report.
ABOUT
Digital Rights Foundation (DRF) is an advocacy and research-oriented
organization working on issues of online freedom of expression, digital privacy,
accessibility and online violence. Founded in 2012, DRF envisions a free, open
and inclusive internet in Pakistan, regionally and globally. Digital Rights
Foundation is a feminist organization and works towards making the internet a
safer space for all—especially women.

Photo by Erik Mclean

TABLE OF CONTENT

Executive Summary 1
Objective 2
Methodology 3
Context 6
a) Uber 8
b) Careem 8
c) Limitation, Challenges 9
and Ethical Considerations
Legal landscape 10
a) Employee Status 13
Ride-Sharing through a Gendered 15
Lens
Privacy, Data Protection and 23
Surveillance: Some Key Issues
Key findings 33
Recommendations 37
Conclusion 40
 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Careem entered the Pakistani market in late 2015, and Uber entered shortly
thereafter in mid-2016. Since then, the use of ride-share applications has
been on the rise in Pakistan. With many seeing such applications as
necessary substitutes for an otherwise unreliable and sometimes
inaccessible public transport system, this convenience also exposes its
users to new vulnerabilities. Findings in this study - after review of the
privacy policies of both companies, a literature review of scholarship in this
area, an interview with the Careem legal team, a consumer survey of
approximately 348 participants, and a focus group with 8 drivers or
‘partners’ - indicate that the companies behind these services are lacking in
their protection and ethical use of personal data, in their provision of safe
workplaces for drivers and safe services for users, especially women.

Photo by Dmitri Popov

 2

OBJECTIVE
‘Real-time ride-sharing’ refers to services that bring together the concept of
commuting in a city with the use of technology. A commuter can request a
ride on a ride-sharing app instantly, through an internet enabled smartphone
device, with just the click of a button. Ride-sharing is less expensive than cab
services because such companies employ individual contracted drivers who
use their personal cars, while being insured by the company they are working
for.

Naturally, since one has to share personal data with the application and with
drivers while calling a cab, including name, location, and phone number, the
handling of real-time data, concerns regarding privacy, have been raised. The
regulation of such services is a primary concern, particularly when background
checks concerning the drivers working for such companies, and the rating
system customers can use to evaluate their experiences with the drivers has
direct impact on their earning potential.

Moreover, it is important to effectively gauge the privacy policies these

companies espouse. It is the aim of this study to assess the practices,
governance, and user experiences of these services in Pakistan to answer key
questions as to the rights of citizens, especially with a view to the enhanced
vulnerability of women and minorities. In the absence of personal data
protection legislation, what are the implications of the data collected,
utilized, and stored by these companies? Is the average user, be it a driver or
a rider, aware of the security policies of the companies, be they digital policies
or otherwise? Do women experience these services differently than men?

Photo by Craig Whitehead

 3

METHODOLOGY

Photo by Matheus Bertelli

 4

METHODOLOGY
The research methodology for this report is based on both quantitative and
qualitative research as well as primary and secondary data. Access to primary data
was limited given the reasons explained below.

This study emanates from the expertise of the researchers, based on their work in
relation to issues of privacy, surveillance and data protection for Digital Rights
Foundation (DRF). DRF is at the forefront of issues concerning internet rights in
Pakistan, and has been working extensively on the right to privacy and digital
surveillance in recent times. Therefore, the desk research for this study is inevitably
built upon previous experience. The team delved into literature and policies to
conduct relevant secondary research for the study. A literature review was
conducted of research that was already conducted on these subjects. Furthermore,
legislation and policies concerning privacy and the concerned companies were
evaluated for this report.

The biggest research complication experienced during fieldwork has been

transparently studying the breaches of privacy on part of the companies, due to the
obfuscation with regards to how the personal data of users is shared and privacy is
breached. The researchers understood at the outset that efforts at attempting to
gauge this would be at the surface level, as actual breaches of users’ privacy cannot
adequately be brought to light.

Essentially, the research is qualitative in nature. Firstly, primary research tools

were heavily dependent upon in-depth formal and semi-formal interviews that were
semi-structured in nature. Interviews were sought with the top management and
employees of ridesharing companies to gauge their approach and policies towards
user and privacy data, and their perspective regarding such services. Careem
cooperated, although the interview questions had to be sent to the UAE office for
response, as the interview with the Careem office in Pakistan revealed no
information, though it was reiterated by the Careem representative that different
departments did possess this information in Pakistan. An interview could not be
conducted with Uber despite the efforts of researchers. Secondly, a focus group
discussion was conducted with 8 drivers (7 males, 1 female) who work for either
one or both companies to analyze the pre-selection screening and training
mechanism they go through. Thirdly, the researchers relied on direct observation in
the field as well as online to substantiate their work.
 5

There is also a quantitative component to the research, whereby the team

conducted online surveys around Pakistan with approximately 348
customers/users of such applications to gauge issues faced by them and their
satisfaction level with the services. The questions were in English, and it was
advertised using social media, namely ‘Facebook’ and ‘Twitter’. The survey exercise
itself served to encourage the users to consider the privacy and data protection
policies of such companies, and what steps they would wish for such companies to
take in order to protect their data and overall personal security.

Moreover, the researchers used feminist methodology to analyse and value the
experiences of women, thereby allowing change in the knowledge production
process. As a researcher, one has to realize that methodology itself is a complex
political process and so it is important, as ‘feminist’ researchers, to problematize
the power imbalance between the researcher and the researched from the very
beginning, if the research is ultimately meant to be from a gender perspective, not
only in terms of analysis but also with respect to changing people’s lives (for the
better, hopefully). As per Feminist Standpoint Theory, a sociological method from
the “standpoint of women”, the social sciences should always be studied from a
feminist perspective. The questions the researchers ask and the way they locate
themselves within the questions and the purpose of the work is an important
consideration. The researchers for this study are both users of these ride-sharing
applications and primarily women. It is worth acknowledging that their positionality
and experiences were the starting point for this research. According to Nancy
Hartsock, “At bottom feminism is a mode of analysis, a method of approaching life
and politics, rather than a set of political conclusions about the oppression of
women.”1 According to her, the power of feminist method helps researchers connect
everyday lives with the analysis of the social institutions that shape those lives.

1
Nancy Hartsock “The feminist standpoint revisited and other essays.” 1998 Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press
 6

CONTEXT

Photo by Edgar Gomez

 7

CONTEXT
The sharing economy, also often referred to as “collaborative consumption”2, can be
defined as the coordination of the “acquisition and distribution of a resource for a
fee or other compensation”3. It can also be defined as the facilitation of “trusted
transactions between strangers on digital platforms”4. Indeed, Uber, Careem, Airbnb
and other companies utilise mobile apps and website presence as key transaction
components of their business models. This allows ordinary people - supporters of
the sharing economy model argue - to be entrepreneurs, allowing them to use their
own assets (vehicles, or homes in the case of Airbnb) to create revenue.

The informal nature of the sharing economy, however, has also given rise to a
growing backlash, both against individual companies - Uber in particular - and the
nascent industry itself. Studies such as the aforementioned by the European Union
and Data & Society Research Institute are part of a growing body of academic
research literature and news reports that catalogue the necessity for stronger
regulation of the informal economy.

Where the regulatory framework governing services such as Careem and Uber is
unclear at best, stakeholders are made vulnerable to negative impacts, whether
they are foreseen, or intended, or neither. The impact Uber and Careem have had on
the privacy of stakeholders in the Pakistani market must be investigated.

2
Daniel Christian Wahl, “Collaborative consumption and peer-to-peer collaboration” 17 August 2017
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/collaborative-consumption-and-peer-to-peer-collaboration-d6e40c04e2e2
3
Cristiano Codagnone and Bertin Martens (2016). Scoping the Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and
Regulatory Issues. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy Working Paper 2016/01. JRC100369
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/JRC100369.pdf
4
Calo and Rosenblat, “The Taking Economy: Uber, Information, and Power” 4 April 2017
https://datasociety.net/blog/2017/04/04/the-taking-economy-uber-information-and-power/
 8

a) UBER
A San Francisco, USA-based ride-sharing and food delivery company, operating in
570 cities worldwide, with legal recognition that varies from region to region of
operation.
In December 2015, Uber received a valuation of around US $68 billion, through
private investors including venture capital investments. It has been suggested that
recent scandals regarding privacy, sexual harassment/assault and intellectual
property theft accusations – which will be further outlined later - have reduced its
valuation, as of April 2017, to approximately $50 billion. As Uber is not traded
publicly, an accurate picture regarding the buying or selling of shares in the
company, or indeed its actual market value, cannot be gauged precisely5.
In addition to VC investment, Uber also received US $3.5 billion in investment from
Saudi Telecom in June 20166.
According to an interview with Bloomberg, however, Uber’s net revenue as of April
2017 was US $6.5 billion, with (adjusted) net losses of US $ 2.8 billion7.

b) CAREEM
A transportation network and ride-sharing company based in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, operating in over 50 cities in Middle East, South Asia and Africa.
As of December 2016, Careem is valued at US $1 billion8 after a US $350 million
investment by Saudi Telecom, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned telecommunications
company, and Rakuten, the Japanese investment firm. Saudi Telecom as of the time
of this review owns 10% of Careem.9

5
Anita Balakrishnan, “Scandals may have knocked $10 billion off Uber's value, a report says” 25 April 2017, CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/uber-stock-price-drops-amid-sexism-investigation-greyballing-and-apple-run-in--the
-information.html
6
Noah Smith “Shares of a Publicly Traded Uber Might Be Crashing” 27 June 2017, Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-27/shares-of-a-publicly-traded-uber-would-be-crashing
7
Eric Newcomer, “Uber, Lifting Financial Veil, Says Sales Growth Outpaces Losses” 14 April 2017, Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-14/embattled-uber-reports-strong-sales-growth-as-losses-contin
ue
8
Madeline Farber, “Uber’s Middle East Rival Just Got a $1 Billion Valuation” 19 December, 2016, Fortune
http://fortune.com/2016/12/19/careem-uber-rival-1-billion/
9
Zahraa Alkhalisi, “Uber's Mideast rival is worth $1 billion after Saudi investment” 19 December, 2016, CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/19/technology/careem-saudi-arabia-investment/index.html
 9

c) LIMITATIONS, CHALLENGES
AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The research remained an overt research at every stage of the process.

Consent of the informants was taken and purpose of the research was shared
with the informants. Further, we addressed the issues of reflexivity, ethics,
reciprocity, and representation in the research during self-reflection.

We remain cognizant of the limitations of our findings, such as the relatively

small size of the focus group leading to insights that are potentially not
homogenous for all drivers of Careem and Uber. Moreover, while all efforts
were made to get an interview with Uber representatives, they were not
willing to grant the same, so our findings lack information from this source.

Photo by Luke van Zyl

 10

LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Photo by Hermes Rivera

 11

LEGAL LANDSCAPE
In January 2017, the government of Punjab moved to ban Careem and Uber after
issuing a notification10 that stated that the two ride-hailing services were operating
outside the regulatory bounds in Lahore. The notification was soon picked by the
Sindh provincial government11 and the services of the two companies were halted in
Karachi as well. Notifications by the two governments were issued to PTA to
immediately cease the operations of Careem and Uber’s apps. It was also mentioned
that “Uber and Careem must take fitness certificate”.

The two governments implied that the ride-hailing services are using private
vehicles for the purpose of commercial activities, and must take route permit and
excise license. It’s important to note here that the companies have been working in
Pakistan since 2015, and the issue was raised in 2017 without mentioning the laws
that Uber and Careem violate. However, the companies were back in business in a
matter of 48 hours, and the negotiation agreement was not made public.

Further, the Chairman of the Punjab IT

Board - Umar Saif - said that the
In January 2017, the government
government is working on an “innovative
business model” under which both
of Punjab moved to ban Careem
Careem and Uber will be regulated by
and Uber after issuing a
the authorities. He also added that the
notification that stated that the
plan will follow along the lines of that in two ride-hailing services were
Malaysia, Egypt, and Indonesia where he operating outside the regulatory
ride-hailing services are treated as bounds in Lahore.
“network service providers.”

Careem’s position, as stated in the response from its legal team, is that “the
applicable company law is the Companies Act 2017. The transport aspect is
governed by the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965”. Careem further stated that
“although no specific law on the technology exists, the Prevention of Electronics
Crimes, Act 2016 may be of closest relevance”. This leaves the companies largely
10
Imtiaz Ali, Imran Gabol, “Punjab govt moves to ban Careem and Uber” 31 January, 2017, Dawn
https://www.dawn.com/news/1311858
11
Muhammad Farooq, “After Punjab, Careem and Uber banned in Karachi” 31 January, 2017, Samaa
https://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2017/01/after-punjabcareem-and-uber-banned-in-karachi/
 12

unregulated in Pakistan, especially in the absence of personal data protection

legislation.

Pakistan is not the only country where any of the ride hailing services have faced
legal notices. In multiple instances, countries around the world have issued rulings
to Uber on account of different complaints and problems the authorities have noted.
In October 2016, an employment tribunal in the UK ruled12 that the controversial
service must treat its drivers as workers of the organisation and grant them their
right to claim minimum wage and holiday pay. Uber’s spokesperson informed that
the company has been granted right to appeal13 against the ruling.

Bulgaria temporarily suspended14 Uber’s services in 2015 on account of unfair trade

practices that don’t comply with minimum requirements of local legislation. In
March 2017, Uber was to shut down its services15 in Denmark after the introduction
of new taxi laws that made taxi metres compulsory for Danish taxi drivers. In April
2017, Italy imposed16 nationwide ban on Uber after a Rome judge ruled in favor of
Italy’s major taxi associations that the ride-hailing service amounted to unfair
competition.

A New York Times report17 revealed that Uber had been using software codenamed
“Greyball” to deceive global law enforcement agencies, by identifying the possible
authorities and present a dummy version of the app to them populated with ghost
cars to evade capture.

This leaves the companies largely unregulated in Pakistan, especially

in the absence of personal data protection legislation.

12
Hilary Osborne, “Uber loses right to classify UK drivers as self-employed” 28 October, 2016, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status
13
Robert Booth, “Uber granted right to appeal against ruling on UK drivers' rights” 19 April, 2017, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/uber-appeal-uk-employment-ruling-drivers-working-rights
14
Staff, “Uber suspends services in Bulgaria”, 6 October, 2015, The Sofia Globe
http://sofiaglobe.com/2015/10/06/uber-suspends-services-in-bulgaria/
15
Jon Henley, “Uber to shut down Denmark operation over new taxi laws”, 28 March, 2017, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/28/uber-to-shut-down-denmark-operation-over-new-taxi-laws
16
Nick Statt, “Italy issues a nationwide Uber ban”, 7 April, 2017, The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/7/15226400/uber-italy-ban-court-ruling
17
Mike Isaac, “How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide”, 3 March, 2017, The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html
 13

a) Employee
Status

Photo by Victor Xok

Uber and Careem’s official position is that the drivers working for them are not
employees but partners, or contractors. This takes away the drivers right to claim
overtime charges and other perks that companies provide their employees. This can
also exclude them from the benefit of any internal complaint procedure against for
instance, sexual harassment at the workplace.

This relationship as defined by Uber - or as Uber aims to define it - has come under
fire, with a number of lawsuits filed in European courts by Uber drivers, citing
violation of employment rights. In October 2016 a UK employment court ruled in
favour of two Uber drivers who argued - on behalf of 19 other Uber drivers - that they
were employees of Uber, rather than self-employed. The court ruled that the Uber
drivers were not self-employed, and must be paid the “national living wage.”18 May
2017 saw Uber’s case before the EU Court of Justice that the “car-hailing
application is just that, an app” rejected. The company had claimed that because
they were a technology company, they should be exempt from normal EU
transportation obligations, an argument that the EU rejected.19

Uber also operated for six months in the state of Alaska in the US before pulling out
its services after facing a dispute on whether the drivers are individual contractors
or registered taxi drivers.

18
Hilary Osborne, “Uber loses right to classify UK drivers as self-employed” 28 October, 2016, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status
19
Stephanie Bodoni, “Uber Suffers Setback in Clash With Cabbies at EU's Top Court” 11 May, 2017, Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-11/uber-suffers-setback-in-eu-court-aide-s-opinion-on-legal-statu
s-j2k4mf4n
 14

Our focus group revealed that Uber

drivers, and Careem drivers as well,
Uber and Careem’s official position is that indicated that they were aware of their
the drivers working for them are not status as ‘partners’ or ‘contractors’,
employees but partners, or contractors. and were not employees of their
This takes away the drivers right to claim respective companies. None of the
overtime charges and other perks that participants of the focus group sought
companies provide their employees. to be identified as an employee, nor
indicated that this would be more
favorable. The participants agreed that
their legal status granted them the freedom to stop and start working at their
leisure.

However, the Uber drivers expressed concerns about the number of new drivers being
added by the company which reduced demand for rides considerably. This led to
unfavourable conditions where most drivers were unable to hit their ride quota to
qualify for bonuses. Moreover the focus group revealed that in the case of
disagreements with customers, the companies would mostly side with the customer
regardless of the driver’s position on the matter. Over half the drivers in the focus
group perceived this as a form of class discrimination – they are not as educated as
their average customer, and hence the company does not take them seriously. Thus
although drivers wish they had greater say in the policies and strategies of the
companies, gaining employee status did not appear to be one of the routes through
which they sought to achieve this.

The Uber drivers expressed concerns about the

number of new drivers being added by the company
which reduced demand for rides considerably. This led
to unfavourable conditions where most drivers were
unable to hit their ride quota to qualify for bonuses.
 15

RIDE-SHARING THROUGH
A GENDERED LENS

Photo by Flickr.com
 16

RIDE-SHARING THROUGH
A GENDERED LENS
It is apparent that groups that are already vulnerable in society are likely to be more
adversely affected by breaches of data security. This was also reflected in the
results of our quantitative and qualitative research, as those with the most safety
concerns and perhaps negative experiences were most likely to choose to
participate in the survey. Women, gender non-conforming individuals, individuals
perceived as such, and religious minorities that can be identified as such from their
names or appearance, feel more unsafe in Ubers and Careems, and are vulnerable to
more immediate dangers as a result of their information vesting in those
companies.

In other countries, Uber has run into trouble20 for some serious breaches of privacy,
such as when a rape survivor sued the company for digging into her medical records
in India.21 In this case, a rape survivor sued the company and alleged that Uber
executives had violated her privacy and illegally obtained medical records to cast
doubt on her claims of being raped. Uber’s failure to conduct adequate background
checks was evident when it was revealed that the man was facing charges in four
other criminal cases at the time of the attack.22 Other examples, such as that of an
Uber driver allegedly assaulted an unconscious passenger,23 also exist to
demonstrate that such cases are not a one-off incident24 thereby highlighting Uber’s
overall problematic approach to gender issues.

With the identified perpetrators often having criminal records, the background
checks these companies ask for become a major issue. The focus group revealed
that the requirement of a police report which certifies that the driver has no criminal

20
Himanshi Nagpal, “Uber And Yet Another Tale Of Not Believing A Rape Survivor” June 14, 2017, Feminism India
https://feminisminindia.com/2017/06/14/uber-eric-alexander/
21
AFP, “Rape Victim Sues Uber for Digging into Medical Records” 16 June, 2017, Dawn
https://www.dawn.com/news/1339899
22
Julia Carrie Wong, “Woman raped by Uber driver in India sues company for privacy breaches” 15 June, 2017, The
Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-india-woman-rape-lawsuit?CMP=twt_gu
23
K.C. Baker, “Uber Driver Allegedly Took Unconscious Female Passenger To Motel and Sexually Assaulted Her”, 27 June,
2017, People http://people.com/crime/uber-driver-allegedly-sexually-assaults-unconscious-passenger-took-her-motel/
24
Sam Levin, “Female Uber driver says company did nothing after passengers assaulted her”, 01 May, 2017, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/uber-sexual-assault-allegations-female-drivers-san-diego
 17

record are a fairly new addition in Pakistan. All drivers for both Careem and Uber
stated that they provided their original Computerised National Identity Cards,
driving licenses, documents of their vehicles, and an electricity or phone bill of their
current addresses. Drivers who had joined either company recently, i.e. within the
past year, stated that they were required to give a police report, and drivers who had
been employed for 1.5 years or more stated that there was no such requirement.
They stated that they had never been asked to submit a police report, indicating
that even after the policy was put in place, it appears that it is not being used to ask
existing drivers to update their records. This raises serious questions about the
trust passengers are placing in these companies before taking rides with them.
Furthermore, if these companies are failing to regulate themselves to the extent
that their own policies are not homogeneously applied to their workers, perhaps the
market is not doing enough to encourage them to regulate, and oversight is needed.
It is worth noting that a driver who worked for both Uber and Careem stated that the
requirement of a police report was initiated by Uber first, and then adopted by
Careem.

All drivers for both Careem and Uber stated that they
provided their original Computerised National Identity
Cards, driving licenses, documents of their vehicles,
and an electricity or phone bill of their current
addresses.

It also appears that much of the security measures in place are retrospective in
nature – determined by complaints passengers make after having taken the ride
with the driver. For example, the focus group unanimously agreed that there is a zero
tolerance policy in place at both Careem and Uber for a driver using another driver’s
account and driving in his place. If a passenger reports the person driving the vehicle
was not the person whose credentials appear on the app at the time of the journey,
the account-holding driver’s partnership with the company is terminated
immediately. This does not serve as a preventative measure, rather a deterrent,
although it is difficult to argue that this is nearly enough to discourage criminals
from misusing the application to perpetrate crimes. It should be noted that 28% of
consumers surveyed said they have felt physically unsafe riding in a Careem or Uber,
and the fact that not all drivers provide police reports certifying their lack of a
criminal record to these companies, will not assuage any concerns.
 18

Another retrospective method to improve drivers’ performance overall is through the

rating system, i.e. each individual ride being rated by the customer ex post facto. If
the ratings of a driver drop below a certain level, they lose out on peak time bonuses.
However, one member of the focus group revealed that the Careem call center
employees have the ability to artificially alter this rating and on occasion will do so
if the driver can make a case for the same. The fact that it is possible to alter the
rating may reduce the effectiveness of the rating system overall in encouraging
drivers not to make passengers uncomfortable.

Uber’s questionable internal company practices are widely known, some of which
have been brought to light in the USA by Susan Fowler, a former engineer with Uber,
with details of how sexist and hostile25 Uber’s work environment actually is for
women. The company’s problematic practices26 have been exposed27 through
detailed accounts of harassment and institutional backwardness on part of the
company, and propelled the company to launch an internal investigation into its
workplace culture. There have been other examples of sexism28 and overall
misconduct on part of Uber’s senior management,29 as well as its board members,
which have led several key players in the business to resign.30

of consumers surveyed said they have felt physically unsafe

riding in a Careem or Uber, and the fact that not all drivers
provide police reports certifying their lack of a criminal
record to these companies, will not assuage any concerns.

25
Himanshi Nagpal, “Uber And Yet Another Tale Of Not Believing A Rape Survivor” June 14, 2017, Feminism India
https://feminisminindia.com/2017/06/14/uber-eric-alexander/
26
AFP, “Rape Victim Sues Uber for Digging into Medical Records” 16 June, 2017, Dawn
https://www.dawn.com/news/1339899
27
Julia Carrie Wong, “Woman raped by Uber driver in India sues company for privacy breaches” 15 June, 2017, The
Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-india-woman-rape-lawsuit?CMP=twt_gu
28
K.C. Baker, “Uber Driver Allegedly Took Unconscious Female Passenger To Motel and Sexually Assaulted Her”, 27 June,
2017, People http://people.com/crime/uber-driver-allegedly-sexually-assaults-unconscious-passenger-took-her-motel/
29
Sam Levin, “Female Uber driver says company did nothing after passengers assaulted her”, 01 May, 2017, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/uber-sexual-assault-allegations-female-drivers-san-diego
30
Sam Levin, “Female Uber driver says company did nothing after passengers assaulted her”, 01 May, 2017, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/uber-sexual-assault-allegations-female-drivers-san-diego
 19

In another instance, the female employees of Uber claimed31 that the male
co-workers, including Travis Kalanick, have been using lactation room to meditate or
attending phone calls. In an attempt to improve its reputation, it was also revealed
that Uber has fired at least 20 employees on account of their investigation on
workplace harassment.

There have also been accounts of privacy breaches on Uber’s part, such as their
attempt to dig up embarrassing information on journalists32 to make points in
arguments.33

Uber’s then CEO Travis Kalanick also

undertook more measures to contain the
fallout after Susan Fowler’s expose by looking
into how diverse the company was. However
as the Chief Executive of the company at the
time, Kalanick was known to set the
Careem call center employees
combative tone at its workplace for a long
have the ability to artificially time. He also called the company ‘Boob-er’34
alter this rating and on occasion because of how it helped him attract women
will do so if the driver can make in a GQ interview in 2014. A link can be
a case for the same. established between the founder’s
encouragement of competitiveness and lack
of scrutiny with regards to regional offices, and its complicated internal politics,
which did not make way for firings, and shielded problematic managers from
accountability over their actions.

31
Julia Carrie Wong, “Sex, Naps, and Meditation: men caught misusing workplace breastfeeding rooms”, 9 June, 2017,
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/09/men-using-lactation-rooms-breastfeeding-at-work
32
Johana Bhuiyan, Charlie Warzel, ““God View”: Uber Investigates its Top New York Executive for Privacy Violations” 18
November, 2014, Buzzfeed
https://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-is-investigating-its-top-new-york-executive-for-privacy?utm_term=.vbL
Bq2joG#.liDPwY6gd
33
Alex Hern, “Uber Investigates Top Executive After Journalist’s Privacy Was Breached”, 19 November, 2014, The
Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/19/uber-investigates-top-executive-after-journalists-privacy-was-
breached
34
“Is Uber the worst company in Silicon Valley?”, 18 November 2014, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst-company-silicon-valley
 20

However, Kalanick ended up taking an indefinite leave while Uber was trying to move
past its tumultuous history. Eventually, in the wake of these instances, Travis
Kalanick was asked to resign35 from his position as CEO after pressure exerted by
the board members who previously supported36 Kalanick.

The focus group participants could not settle on a set time period
that this training lasted, indicating that it varies. One participant,
who had undergone this initial training at both Uber and Careem,
stated that this lasts 15-20 minutes. Other drivers said it last 1-2
hours, and one said it lasted 3 hours.

This culture permeates through the ranks and across Uber worldwide and our focus
group indicates that both Uber and Careem have had many instances of harassment
which have gone unreported. Our focus group revealed that a female driver, who
worked for both Uber and Careem faced harassment by passengers who would save
her phone number during the ride, and call her number after the ride had ended. (This
is prior to the call-masking feature becoming operational at Uber, where the calls
between driver and rider are routed through an official number and personal numbers
are not made available. This feature existed in Careem as of November 2017, and
was introduced in Uber in late 2018, although drivers still sometimes share
numbers to make picking up passengers easier). When asked whether she had
faced harassment as a result of her work, she answered in the negative. However,
in answering another question she stated that she had a separate phone number for
her driving accounts, and blocked all the numbers who would call her without
reason. When asked how many numbers she had to block in order to avoid receiving
unsolicited calls from unknown men, she stated that it was approximately 250. She
found this irritating but did not label this as harassment. The fact that she seemed
unable to define this as a form of harassment, and did not consider this serious
enough to report the sheer number of unsolicited calls to the management of either
company indicates that no action is being done to tackle this on a company level.
This indicates that the drivers have not been given effective sexual harassment
training where the definition of workplace harassment are discussed and

35
Sam Byford, “Travis Kalanick resigns as Uber CEO”, 21 June, 2017, The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/21/15844836/uber-ceo-resigns-travis-kalanick
36
Mike Isaac, “Uber Board Stands by Travis Kalanick as It Reveals Plans to Repair Its Image”, 21 March, 2017, The New
York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/technology/uber-board-stands-by-travis-kalanick.html
 21

mechanisms for complaints are provided.

All members of the focus group mentioned the mandatory induction training session
they received before joining Uber and Careem. The focus group participants could
not settle on a set time period that this training lasted, indicating that it varies. One
participant, who had undergone this initial training at both Uber and Careem, stated
that this lasts 15-20 minutes. Other drivers said it last 1-2 hours, and one said it
lasted 3 hours. All participants identified that customer care – specifically not to
harass passengers by asking them intimate questions, looking at them in the rear
view mirrors, or calling them unnecessarily – was included in this training. When
asked whether there were updated trainings or refresher sessions, they agreed
there were none, with some pointing out that drivers can be asked to attend again
if there have been customer complaints about their behaviour. One participant
pointed out that these sessions also contain a run through of how to use the
application, and drivers who want to review this tend to take the session again for
this purpose.

This indicates that unsolicited attention from the driver and rider is somewhat
addressed in the trainings, which all drivers undergo before being able to start
working. However, if instances of the same are never highlighted by the few female
drivers that exist, this indicates that there is a lack of support from the
management, who have not created a comfortable and safe work environment. The
female member of the focus group indicated that she was respected in the Careem
offices for “being brave, and taking all kinds of journeys, not just within the most
affluent areas of the city”. But the notion that she has to be ‘brave’ to do this work
is problematic in itself. When asked what hurdles translate in there being so few
female drivers in both companies, she stated “This isn’t an easy job for women, you
need strength and determination. We all know what the society is like; there are
good people, but there are plenty of people who need shut-up calls when they step
outside their limits”.

Problems with unwanted contact and unpleasant experiences, which can escalate
to harassment exist with drivers and riders alike.
 22

Of the consumers surveyed,

46 %experienced unwanted
conversation
%
experienced inappropriate
comments

15 % experienced unwanted
contact after the ride
had ended
9%
experienced inappropriate jokes

6 %
experienced undesirable flirting
5 %
experienced comments of a
sexual nature

%
experienced unwanted touching
 23

PRIVACY, DATA PROTECTION

AND SURVEILLANCE:
SOME KEY ISSUES

Photo by Markus Spiske

 24

PRIVACY, DATA PROTECTION AN

SURVEILLANCE:
SOME KEY ISSUES
Uber has come under intense criticism with numerous reports of alleged violations
of user privacy, going back as early as 2014, when it was first accused of tracking
users without their knowledge or consent, using software developed in-house.37
Uber has been unable to deal with many of the privacy issues in the use of its
application. The company continues to violate the privacy of the users of their app
and services, in spite of making public statements to the contrary. The violation has
extended, for instance, to reports of sensitive medical information of victims of
sexual assault being looked up by senior Uber personnel, as well reports of Uber
allegedly tracking some users even after the app has been deleted from their
phones.38
The user information collected by Uber, Careem and other ridesharing companies is
of great interest to governments, with some requesting access to that user
database for surveillance purposes. An article39 by the New York Times highlighted
how Egypt’s military government requested access to Uber’s internal user data-
collection software, also known as “Heaven”. Uber denied the request, but the New
York Times article reports that a similar request was made of Careem - which
“serves three million Egyptians” - with preferential treatment being offered if the
data of its Egyptian customer base were to be shared with the country’s military
intelligence agencies. According to Careem, they also denied requests by the
Egyptian government.

According to their privacy policies, they (Uber and Careem) are

liable to share the customer information on a case-to-case basis
in countries where the law binds them.

37
Johana Bhuiyan, Charlie Warzel, ““God View”: Uber Investigates its Top New York Executive for Privacy Violations” 18
November, 2014, Buzzfeed
https://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-is-investigating-its-top-new-york-executive-for-privacy
38
Kate Cox, “Uber Reportedly Tracked iPhones Even After the App was Deleted, Bought Lyft Receipts”, 26 April, 2017,
Consumerist
https://consumerist.com/2017/04/24/uber-reportedly-tracked-iphones-even-after-the-app-was-deleted-bought-lyft-rec
eipts/
39
Declan Walsh, “Dilemma for Uber and Rival: Egypt’s Demand for Data on Riders”, 10 June, 2017, The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/world/middleeast/egypt-uber-sisi-surveillance-repression-careem.html
 25
Companies such as Uber and Careem may not have a choice, however, given that
laws in certain jurisdictions require companies such as the two ridesharing giants
to share their data with the government, and to establish servers in the country.

According to their privacy policies, they (Uber and Careem) are liable to share the
customer information on a case-to-case basis in countries where the law binds
them. Uber’s privacy policy40 states,

“We may share your information:

For legal reasons or in the event of a dispute

Uber may share your information if we believe it is required by applicable
law, regulation, operating agreement, legal process or governmental
request, or where the disclosure is otherwise appropriate due to safety or
similar concerns.

This includes sharing your information with law enforcement officials,

government authorities, airports (if required by the airport authorities as a
condition of operating on airport property) or other third parties as
necessary to enforce our Terms of Service, user agreements or other
policies, to protect Uber’s rights or property or the rights, safety or
property of others, or in the event of a claim or dispute relating to your use
of our services. If you use another person’s credit card, we may be
required by law to share information with that credit card holder, including
trip information.

This also includes sharing your information with others in connection with,
or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets,
consolidation or restructuring, financing, or acquisition of all or a portion of
our business by or into another company.

Please see Uber's Guidelines for Law Enforcement Authorities for more
information.

With your consent

Uber may share your information other than as described in this policy if
we notify you and you consent to the sharing.”

40
Uber Privacy Policy: Other Important Sharing https://www.uber.com/legal/privacy/users/en/
 26
Whereas, Careem’s policy states, 41

“In response to a request for information by a competent authority if we

believe disclosure is in accordance with, or is otherwise required by, any
applicable law, regulation, or legal process;

With law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third

parties to enforce or apply our Terms of Service, to investigate potential
breaches or if we believe your actions are inconsistent with our Terms of
Service, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of Careem or others.”
The point to note here is that this set of data not only holds user’s name and
number, but also the places they frequently visit, their real time location, their
whereabouts, the data in their phone, and the likes. Currently no transparency
reports are generated by both companies to understand the extent of
government-company cooperation in terms of data sharing.

With governments all over the world expanding the surveillance powers of their
intelligence agencies - as well as data-sharing agreements with other nations - the
user data collected by sharing economy companies becomes a potential treasure
trove42 that can place many in danger.

In our survey, 82% of customers indicated that they were not comfortable with
Uber/Careem sharing their data with third parties. When asked about Uber/Careem
sharing data with Law enforcement agencies and government authorities, 65%
responded that they were not comfortable with this. 92% of customers surveyed
stated that Uber and Careem should not be sharing data with third parties without
notifying customers.

Currently no transparency reports are generated by both

companies to understand the extent of government-company
cooperation in terms of data sharing.

41
Careem Privacy Policy: Sharing of Personal Data - Other Important Sharing
https://www.careem.com/karachi/privacy-policy
42
“The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data”, 6 May, 2016, The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy-demands-new-approach-antitrust-rules-worlds-mo
st-valuable-resource
 27
Uber and Careem representatives in Pakistan were approached in order to gain
information from a direct source regarding the choices the companies were making
with regard to data. However, Uber refused to cooperate, although they were
approached multiple times. On the other hand, the Careem legal team responded to
a set questionnaire through email, after a face to face interview with their PR
representative in the Karachi office which resulted in no definite answers.

When asked why Careem accesses users’ “MAC Address, IP address, SMS data,
transaction information, browsing history information, searching history
information, and registration history information”, Careem responded by saying that
they “do not currently collect all of this information as a matter of standard
procedure, but have given themselves the flexibility to so collect if required”. They
added that “at present, they do collect certain device-specific information (such as
MAC Address and IP Address) in order to enable (them) to uniquely identify the
devices of captains and clients. This is an important aspect of (their) operations
because, amongst other things, it allows (them) to monitor and thwart fraudulent
activity from captains and clients and helps Careem to respond quickly in the event
that a captain or client is in an emergent situation.”

When asked what privacy protection protocols are in place at Careem, the legal
team responded as follows:

Privacy is a high priority at Careem. We have a number of

measures in place to protect information provided to us by
captains and clients. For example, all personal information that
we receive from captains and clients is collected and stored in
an encrypted format. In addition, we have processes in place to
secure any transfer of personal information on our platform and
any communication on the platform between captains and
clients. Our aim is to review and improve our current privacy
policies and procedures on an ongoing basis.

Careem was also asked what user data/metadata is collected by the company.
Additionally it was enquired if someone uninstalled the app and deleted their
account, how long this user data/metadata was kept by the company afterwards.
 28
Careem’s legal team’s response is as follows:

From users, we generally collect names, email addresses and phone

numbers (with the phone number being verified through SMS). We collect
the same from our captains, in addition to certain government
identifications such as a drivers’ license.

Officially, our policy is to retain data for a period of five years, however we
do not have a deletion process in place and account information currently
remains on our system indefinitely as part of our system’s back-up and
recovery process. We are able to manually delete relevant account
information if requested from a user.

We also enquired as to how Careem secures personal customer data, and whether
that process has been audited/reviewed by independent third parties, and whether
a copy of the most recent security audit report can be obtained. The response
received is as follows:

We store all personal customer data in an encrypted form in RDS (managed

mySQL) database in Amazon (AWS) Ireland Data Center. In addition,
personal customer data is transmitted when needed over secure and
encrypted HTTPS protocol. Internally, personal customer data is accessible
to Careem personnel only on a need-to-know basis and with the use of
internal tools that are only selectively available internally.

We have never had the process audited by an independent third party but
we are constantly reviewing and working to improve our systems to comply
with or exceed industry standards in each of our markets and
internationally.

We enquired as to the data retention period, particularly if a customer deletes both

their app and their account with the company. Careem’s response is as follows:
 29

Officially, our policy is to retain data for a period of five years, however we
do not have a deletion process in place and account information currently
remains on our system indefinitely as part of our system’s back-up and
recovery process. We are able to manually delete relevant account
information if requested from a user.

Careem was also asked about the company’s Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) regarding data retention and storage, especially in the context of the August
2016 passage of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).

Careem’s response is as follows:

We store all personal customer data in an encrypted form. The personal

customer data is accessible to Careem personnel only on a need-to-know
basis in order to fulfil their employment duties and the use of internal tools
are only selectively available internally. With respect to storage, we use
Amazon (AWS) data storage facilities and services in Ireland.

The following is Careem’s input on the tools they have in place to protect against
cyber attacks:

We have various tools in place to protect against cyber-attacks and security

vulnerabilities in accordance with industry standard, including but not
limited to DDoS protections, rate limiting, IP blacklisting and using captcha
and other standard measures. We collaborate with AWS and certain
security companies and other partners on a regular basis to continue to
enhance our security measures. We experience cyber-attacks on a regular
basis but we have managed to thwart material attacks with our security
tools. We are open to disclosing based upon freedom of information
requests.
 30

We also raised concerns with regard to Careem’s Privacy Policy, wherein under
“Sharing of Personal Data: Other Important Sharing”, it states that,

Careem may share the personal user information with; Careem

intermediaries and affiliated entities; Vendors, consultants, marketing and
advertising partners, and other service providers who need access to
such Personal Data to carry out work on our behalf or to perform any
contract we enter into with them;

Third parties in connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger,

sale of company assets, consolidation or restructuring, financing, or
acquisition of all or a portion of our business by or into another company;

If we otherwise notify you and you consent to the sharing;

Thus we asked if Careem takes informed consent from the users before sharing this
information. Careem’s response is as follows:

By registering with the application, a user must agree to our terms and
conditions. Use of the application on an ongoing basis signifies consent to
our terms of use and privacy policy.

Our survey revealed that approximately

of the users did not know how their data is used,

stored and shared.

27% stated they were somewhat aware of this information, and only 5% answered
in the affirmative.

Moreover, 48% of those surveyed stated that they were only somewhat aware of the
data they had provided to rideshare applications in the first place.

There is disconnect between Careem’s idea of seeking ‘informed consent’ and the
Pakistani customer’s granting of this consent.
 31

of customers indicated that they were not comfortable with

Uber / Careem sharing their data with third parties.

We also asked whether Careem had ever taken consent from the users before
sharing their information in the past, and if so, whether they could state the
circumstance in which it was required to obtain and share that information.
Careem responded as follows:

As a general policy, we only use user information in connection with the

driving services (for example, to share trip information with a driver or limo
company). In the near future, we will be introducing a login-authentication
tool as a service. This will provide additional solutions to our clients through
other third party applications. This tool will request explicit consent from
clients prior to disclosing information to any third party application.
Consent will be able to be revoked at any time by the users.

This response indicates that none of these ‘solutions’ are currently in place, and
casts doubt over whether consent before third party sharing isn’t specific consent
for specific purposes after all, and instead overarching sharing under the vague
reasoning of ‘in connection with the driving services’.

Moreover, it should be noted that when asked in our survey whether they would
allow it if Careem and/or Uber asked permission to share their information stored on
their server with a third party (like marketing agencies for targeted ads), 87% of
customers surveyed answered in the negative.

Careem further stated that customers have the option to opt out of sharing their
information with third parties by not using the application, and that “use of the
application signifies consent”.

When asked what happens to the data once it is handed over to third parties, and
the measures taken to ensure it remains secure, Careem stated:
 32

Once handed over, the data continues to be stored by us and the other party.
While in transit, it is shared as metadata over a secure file system sharing
tool. The third party independent contractors that provide the driving
services are subject to confidentiality obligations and compliance with
applicable law, however we have no direct control over them so cannot
comment on their internal procedures.

To answer the questions as to who is authorised to access the data saved on the
app and to what extent, whether the entire travel history of the consumer stored on
the app is accessible to the call center representatives, and how Careem ensures
there isn't a breach of customer privacy on the Careem agent's level, Careem had
the following response:

Client data is accessible to Careem personnel only on a need-to-know basis

and with the use of internal tools that are only selectively available
internally. Travel history is stored on the app and accessible to call center
representatives. We have strict privacy protocols in place to protect against
breach, as well as fraud detection and quality assurance measures. In
general, call center representatives are only authorized to access an
account in connection with a request or concern from a client and only to
the extent required to address such request or concern. Any material
breach of protocol from a call center representative will result in immediate
termination.
 33

KEY FINDINGS OF
THE RESEARCH

Photo by Agence Olloweb

 34

KEY FINDINGS OF THE

RESEARCH
Complaint mechanisms are the only recourse for
women who feel unsafe on the apps:
Uber has no local call centre and therefore it is harder for the average customer to
access. Careem does have a helpline, although one surveyed customer who has
difficulty hearing could not utilise it as they insisted they take the call to provide
assistance / process the complaint further. Additionally,

of customers of customers
surveyed stated that surveyed said that
Careem’s reporting Uber’s reporting
mechanism is easy, mechanism was
while only easy.
Surveyed customers were also asked what their experience has been with each
company’s customer service facilities in the event of trouble with Uber and/or
Careem services. In response, 19% responded by saying good experience with
Careem, bad experience with Uber, and 3% responded good experience with Uber
and bad experience with Careem. In response to another question, 15% of
customers surveyed stated that Uber doesn’t take complaints seriously but Careem
does; while 2% stated Careem doesn’t take complaints seriously, Uber does.
Overall, it appeared that in many cases, neither Careem nor Uber replied to the
complaints at all.

The focus group reported that Uber seems stricter with drivers who break rules, or
have complaints against them, resulting in drivers’ accounts being blocked for the
week. Careem drivers stated their account could be blocked too, however
correspondence with the Careem office, often in person if necessary, could resolve
the issue faster and allowed the driver to begin working again.
 35

Background Checks and Screening:

During the focus group, it was discovered that Uber introduced the requirement of a
police report first, and Careem followed suit. However, neither Uber nor Careem ask
pre-existing drivers to provide the same to update their records in accordance with
the more recent policy. Both companies ask for multiple forms of identification and
car documents, however, only Careem has ‘PakWheels’ examine the vehicle in
question before clearing it for use. Uber’s cars are not examined by Pak Wheels or an
equivalent company to verify whether it meets a set standard for use.

The existence of privacy policies:

Both Careem and Uber have privacy/data policies. However, the focus group revealed
that none of the drivers were aware of the existence of any such policy, and its
existence had never been indicated to them. One driver went as far as to say that
such a policy is not necessary, and that the kind of data they (the drivers) provide
and that customers provide is not sensitive in nature. Moreover,

of customers surveyed stated that they had

not read Careem and/or Uber’s privacy
policies.

Thus it is clear that many individuals, both partners and customers may be unaware
of the implications of the unwanted sharing of their data, and the policies that claim
to protect it.

The quality of privacy protocols and policies:

Both Uber and Careem have questionable data policies, in that they share data with
third parties whose internal policies they likely have no control over (and hence data
is essentially vulnerable to a whole new degree once transmitted) and that their
privacy policies are not homogenous across the world (although the GDPR in Europe
will force them to fall in line with the same, similar benefits are not as likely to be
experienced by users in Pakistan, who do not have data protection legislation to
safeguard their interests). The Uber policy has a separate section for EU citizens,
affording them basic rights, such as correction and deletion, neither of which are
afforded to the Pakistani user, although applications can be made for the latter (and
are likely not to be fully acquiesced to). When asked whether they would, at any
point, want all their data deleted from Uber / Careem servers, 84% of the customers
surveyed answered in the affirmative.
 36

Moreover, it seems neither Uber nor Careem has a provision which requires it to
disclose when it has experienced a breach in its security and the data of its
employees or customers has been compromised. In late November 2017, it was
revealed that in 2016 Uber’s database had been hacked, with the data of 57 million
users being stolen, but Uber remained silent about the hack. Similarly, on April 23,
2018, Careem revealed that its servers were hacked in January 2018 and users
weren't notified for four months. However 78% of customers in our survey indicated
that they would continue to use these services regardless.

When asked whether they

would, at any point, want all of the customers surveyed
their data deleted from Uber answered in the affirmative.
/ Careem servers,
 37

RECOMMENDATIONS

Photo by Markus Spiske

 38

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations to the Government:
Personal data protection legislation must be enacted, which provides
regulation for rideshare applications and their approach to data protection of
users.
In order to maintain car quality and provide a secondary check on driver
credentials outside of Uber and Careem’s own framework, the government
should grant licenses to drivers who wish to work as a partner, and for cars of
a certain quality to be used for rideshare purposes. The procedure must be
quick and cost-effective so as not to hamper the ability of drivers to gain
livelihood.
The government should require Careem and Uber to conduct regular security
audits, the reports of which must be made publically available.

Recommendations to Careem and Uber:

Both Uber and Careem should regularly train and retrain all its employees in
gender sensitivity, customer dealing etc.
Both Uber and Careem must have local call centers, physical complaint
offices, and online complaint mechanisms which operate in all regional
languages and are accessible to the differently abled.
Both Uber and Careem should provide an update on the action taken / not
taken with reasoning to every complainant within a reasonable time of making
a complaint.
Both Uber and Careem should take strict action in case of complaints of
harassment, especially if it is targeted towards a minority.
Uber should have a unified standard for car quality that is assessed by a third
party before a car is allowed for use and these checks should be repeated
periodically.
Both Uber and Careem should run specific campaigns in each city of operation
to encourage women to sign up as drivers to improve the gender divide in the
partners.
 39

In the event of a security breach, both Uber and Careem must inform the
entities whose data security has been compromised at the earliest possibility,
and the companies must be held accountable for the same.
Both Uber and Careem must develop a framework for informed consent to be
obtained from drivers and customers for data collection, use and sharing. Data
sought should be restricted to necessary data and should not be shared with
third parties without specific and separate consent unless absolutely
necessary.
Both Uber and Careem must develop detailed and comprehensive privacy
policies specific to Pakistan as well as workplace harassment policies that
create safer workplaces for divers. These policies should be available publicly
and within the application as well (both in English, Urdu, and regional
languages in its areas of operation). In case of privacy policies being updated,
the user should be informed within the app and through email.
 40

CONCLUSION

Photo by Maksym Kaharlytskyi

 41

CONCLUSION
The use of rideshare applications is on the rise and is unlikely to see a decline in the
near future. There is need to maintain healthy competition between companies
providing this service, which ought to be based on non-price features such as
customer service, security, etc, and which should create an environment which
allows for the entry of new players in this market. The evolution of these companies
ought to happen in light of the findings in this report, feedback from customers and
civil society, and most importantly, in light of the legal, ethical and social trends
seen globally with regard to privacy and the protection of personal data, the
implications of which extend much farther than just digital spaces, and have real
world implications.