{"id":51285,"date":"2024-03-22T23:25:20","date_gmt":"2024-03-22T23:25:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/?p=51285"},"modified":"2024-03-22T23:25:20","modified_gmt":"2024-03-22T23:25:20","slug":"data-control-or-data-creep-the-lagos-state-government-uber-clash-over-user-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/data-control-or-data-creep-the-lagos-state-government-uber-clash-over-user-privacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Control or Data Creep? The Lagos State Government-Uber Clash over User Privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Bibitayo Emmanuel Ojo<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A storm is brewing in Lagos’ booming ride-hailing industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

Against the backdrop of a growing ride-hailing industry, a growing concern is emerging from the agreement between ride-hailing platforms and the Lagos state government which was executed in 2020. This agreement sought to facilitate the sharing of user data, a decision that has since catalysed a potential dispute between the government and Uber, a prominent player in the industry. Notably, while Uber’s competitor, Bolt, has reportedly embraced the terms outlined in the agreement, Uber remains hesitant, as it was reported.<\/p>\n

Backdoor Access and Big Brother?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The genesis of this inharmoniousness traces back to regulatory interventions introduced in 2020 by the Lagos State government pertaining to ride-hailing operations. Among these regulations was a stipulation mandating ride-hailing companies to grant backend access to user trip data and location specifics. The government asserted multifaceted objectives for this requisition, citing imperatives such as urban planning, revenue optimisation, and strengthening security measures. This regulatory framework set the stage for the current gridlock, highlighting the intersection of governmental interest, and privacy of the ride-hailing users.<\/p>\n

Data Privacy Principles Under Threat<\/strong><\/p>\n

While governments may cite various reasons for access requests, it is essential to critically examine such actions through the lens of data privacy principles.<\/p>\n

Principle of Purpose Limitation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023<\/strong> emphasizes the principle of Purpose Limitation, which states that personal data should be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes. When governments request access to Uber user data, questions arise regarding the intended purpose of such access. If the government’s use of the data extends beyond the original purpose for which it was collected, it could violate this fundamental principle. So, the question is whether the purpose for which data was collected from Uber users includes government surveillance.<\/p>\n

Checking through the data sharing clause in the Uber privacy policy, it was crystal clear that data is not to be shared with the Lagos state government for one reason or the other. Could that be an oversight from Uber?<\/p>\n

Either way, processing users\u2019 data outside the purpose for collection is against the spirit of the fundamental right to privacy of users (Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 as Amended))<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Principle of Data Minimisation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The principle of data minimisation mandates that personal data should be adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which it is processed. When governments request access to extensive datasets from Uber, including user trip histories and location information, there is a concern that data is being collected more than it is strictly necessary for the stated objectives.<\/p>\n

Reliance on Part B of Uber\u2019s privacy policy<\/p>\n

\u2018Uber uses data to enable reliable and convenient transportation, delivery, and other products and services. We also use\u00a0data:<\/em><\/p>\n