I don’t completely disagree but there are some ways to handle at least parts of what you’re talking about. For example, either persistent or ephemeral pseudonyms (yet still uniquely identifiable, at least for a time) and threshold decryption if at least 2 out of the 3 parties agree to some kind of privilege escalation (most likely would be either lyft and rider or lyft and driver, but rider-driver is interesting).

    > Is your issue with Lyft's business model, or my 
    > comments about encryption?

Both, as it goes :)

I think you're using the word need in a much more narrow context than I am. Without Lyft/Uber/whoever convincing their customers that they're needed, there is no need for the data to be recorded in the first place.

And most of the time, you'd still get to Gran's when you said you would.

I know very few people who would tolerate not being able to get a refund. I know many who would end up giving up fighting for it, but would never use the service again.

And, lets bring it up to something more relevant. The driver steals from or assaults a passenger. Having that data would be key in actually bringing charges against the driver.