Did Lyft have anything to do with Uber’s huge data breach last year?

By Lulu Chang December 19, 2015

lyft self driving cars california glowstache — Image used with permission by copyright holder

It’s no secret that there’s little love lost between Uber and Lyft, but would they really try to hack into one another’s databases? The Department of Justice is now attempting to answer precisely that question, as it launches an investigation into whether or not Lyft employees were involved in the massive data breach Uber suffered last year. The security breakdown resulted in the compromise of some 50,000 drivers’ names and license numbers, and if rival car service Lyft had anything to do with it, this could be the beginning of some ugly legal battles.

Suspicions against Lyft first arose when an independent internal Uber investigation found that an IP address “potentially associated with the breach” was traced to Lyft’s chief technology officer, Chris Lambert. But Lambert’s lawyer, former federal prosecutor Miles Ehrlich, has asserted that the executive “had nothing to do” with the breach.

“Given that Uber apparently lost driver data, a law enforcement investigation is to be expected,” Ehrlich told Reuters. “And the benefit is that the culprit here is going to be identified — and that’s going to remove Chris’ name from any conversation about Uber’s data breach, as it should.”

While officials insist that “no one has been accused of any wrongdoing,” and furthermore that it is “unclear whether anyone will ultimately be charged in connection with the breach,” Lyft is reassuring the world that it was entirely uninvolved with the unfortunate incident.

On Friday, the pink mustache company repeated that it had already established “no evidence that any Lyft employee, including Chris, downloaded the Uber driver information or database, or had anything to do with Uber’s May 2014 data breach.”

Uber and Lyft have long been the two main players in the booming car service industry, though Uber is the larger of the two companies. Neither company is any stranger to controversy — issues with rules, regulations, and bad PR seem to be a constant struggle for both. However, this investigation, which may pit the two directly against one another, may be the most dramatic to date.

Editors' Recommendations

Topics

Former Digital Trends Contributor

Fascinated by the effects of technology on human interaction, Lulu believes that if her parents can use your new app…

News

Facebook faces another huge data leak affecting 267 million users

mark zuckerberg speaking in front of giant digital lock

More than 267 million Facebook users’ IDs, phone numbers, and names were exposed to an online database that could potentially be used for spam and phishing campaigns.

Security researcher Bob Diachenko uncovered the database, according to Comparitech. The database was first indexed on December 4, but as of today, December 19, it is unavailable. Comparitech reports that before the site was taken down, the database was found on a hacker forum as a downloadable file.

Web

OnePlus customer data stolen in second data breach in two years

oneplus 7t macro lens iphone 11 lacks cameras

Phone company OnePlus has suffered another data breach, with an undisclosed number of customer names, contact numbers, email addresses, and shipping addresses stolen by an unnamed hacker or group.

This comes less than two years after up to 40,000 customers' private information was stolen from OnePlus, leading to credit card fraud using customers' details. In this case, the breach only came to light when the issue of credit card fraud was raised by a user on the OnePlus forums. An investigation subsequently discovered a malicious script had been gobbling up customer credit card details when they were entered into the OnePlus website.

Cars

Uber is now arguing that it doesn’t actually have any drivers

An Uber App on a smartphone.

If you've been living a life where you thought Uber had “drivers,” it’s time to rethink your entire existence.
In 2017, Uber executive Nicholas Valentino, the operations manager for the company’s Atlanta operations at the time, repeatedly corrected the plaintiff’s attorney in a case when the latter referred to the people operating cars on Uber’s platform as “drivers,” the Washington Post reported Monday.
According to Valentino, they are not drivers. Instead, he wanted those individuals referred to as “independent, third-party transportation providers."
If that sounds like an off-the-cuff remark, think again. Apparently, Valentino repeated the claim a total of 16 times in the course of the case. The case, Jessicka Harris v. Uber, was filed by a woman who almost lost her leg when she was struck by a vehicle being operated on Uber’s behalf that she claimed had veered off the road.
In that same case, Uber was asked to “admit or deny that Uber is in the business of providing transportation,” to which the company’s attorneys also repeatedly “denied.”
Uber later settled the case out of court but has maintained throughout a number of similar cases that it does not employ its drivers, going as far as to say about one driver that it “never had an agency, employment, partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise relationship with him.”
Gives you the warm fuzzies, right?
The transcript of the 2017 case comes as Uber is fighting a similar but different battle in its home state of California regarding whether or not its “third-party transportation providers” should be considered employees.
Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill AB5, which will give gig workers some of the same labor protections and benefits afforded to regular employees of companies, including health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, and a guaranteed minimum hourly wage. It also gives employees the ability to unionize.
Uber strongly opposes the bill and said that the majority of the drivers on the platform would prefer to stay independent and have flexibility rather than be classified as employees.
“We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. But we will also continue to advocate for the independence and choice that drivers tell us again and again in surveys, polls, focus groups, and personal conversations that they value most,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in a blog post after Newsom signed the bill.
“Today, drivers have control over when, where, and how they work," West said. "They can choose to work for any of our competitors at the same time, and many do. In the U.S., 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. This would all change dramatically if they were employees. We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in California.”
AB5 is expected to go into effect on January 1, 2020.