1. I understand why safety concerns would cause Uber or Lyft drivers to record inside their cars. Just don’t livestream it.
2. Totally not surprising that someone with such a disregard for privacy and safety of others would be trying to be a police officer. He’ll probably get hired because of the this news story.
Seriously, totally ignoring for the moment the sheer objectification of women in this situation, it’s a goddamn safety risk. People’s homes are shown. What if someone is being stalked by an ex? Or someone is casing out homes for theft?
“This better be (expletive) content, I swear to God. This better be (expletive) content, that’s all I’m saying,” Gargac said as the two women approached. “I mean, the blond girl looks kind of cute, if they’re together. The blonde is cute. The one who ordered is not.”- goddamn what a fucking pig.
From the Post-Dispatch -
“Gargac says that at first he also informed his passengers he was streaming, but he noticed most either refused to speak or acted out for the camera.
“I didn’t like it. It was fake. It felt produced,” he said.
He decided he did not need passengers’ consent.”
Since Missouri is a one-party consent state, there really isn’t anything technically illegal with this. And apparently Uber and Lyft don’t care if you do it.
Also from the Post-Dispatch,
“The Post-Dispatch was able to identify about a dozen of Gargac’s passengers using information disclosed in archived videos of the livestreams, including names, addresses and employers.”
And finally, beautiful shade thrown by the Post-Dispatch: “At the end of a 90-minute in-person interview with the Post-Dispatch, Gargac asked that his full name not be published in connection with this story. The Post-Dispatch already knew his name. He said it in one of his own videos, and his identity was later confirmed through public records and social media accounts. He gave a reporter his business card.”