Waze of Deception
Navigating the Thin Line Between Crowdsourcing and Exploitation
Born on a Balcony in Tel Aviv
When Ehud Shabtai’s wife gifted him a GPS device, he found it inaccurate and annoying to use. So, in 2006, he launched FreeMap Israel as an alternative. The program was free to use and depended on volunteers to build the map used for navigation. After seeing early success, Shabtai, joined by Amir Shimar and Uri Levine, founded Waze in 2008 to commercialize the power of crowdsourcing. Nearly two decades later, Waze remains fundamentally the same, still defined by the goal of working together to improve the quality of everyone’s daily driving.
Despite this benevolent purpose, Waze has had its fair share of controversies. The most common issue concerns the privacy and security of user data. In line with the proverb, “if something is free, you’re the product,” Waze’s income primarily comes from selling user data, usually through advertising. There also exist worries surrounding data-sharing with government agencies/law enforcement, and Waze’s most iconic feature, police tracking, has faced direct complaints from law enforcement for endangering officers and promoting risky driving behaviour.
Meanwhile, Waze’s defining trait, its use of crowdsourcing, has managed to avoid criticism. Buzzwords such as user empowerment, community engagement, and inclusivity make crowdsourcing appear as an innovative way of harnessing the power of users to create a better product. However, for Waze, these positive qualities are byproducts, and instead, crowdsourcing is merely an exploitative tool to make money.
As a result, Waze’s use of crowdsourcing acts as an example of exploitation rather than ethical design.
Why Crowdsource?
“Waze’s mission is to work together to improve the quality of everyone’s daily driving. By taking part in the Waze community, you help other Wazers get a more accurate map, up-to-date traffic reports, localized app and features, and more.”
— Waze Community Terms of Service
Waze originally relied on crowdsourcing to save money because it couldn’t afford to license maps from a third party. The app began as an open-source project and was simply a medium where people could work together to outsmart traffic. The ease and ability for anyone to become an editor helped Waze draw on a diverse and representative range of voices and overcome issues with data gaps and discrimination. Real-time updates and localized information give Waze more relevant and accurate data and allow the app to provide alternative routes missing from other navigation systems.
However, when Waze transitioned to a for-profit company, it became subject to the same pressures faced by every business in a capitalist society. The pursuit of faster navigation blended with the pursuit of profit and crowdsourcing became a way to both save and make money. Nevertheless, Waze retained the perks of crowdsourcing, and the end product stayed relatively the same. If the results don’t change, how can we evaluate the ethics?
Maxim (noun): The principle of action you give yourself when you’re about to do something. (From The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau)
To do so, we turn to deontology, which judges the morality of one’s actions based on intentions and reasons for action rather than results. The results of our actions are often out of our control, but our intentions are not. Therefore, the morality of an act depends on its maxim, meaning it’s not only whether you did the right thing that matters but if you did it for the right reasons. By isolating Waze’s intentions, we can evaluate the ethics of its use of crowdsourcing.
Waze’s stated maxim is working together to improve navigation so everyone can get where they want to go more easily. But in reality, there’s a secondary component of relying on volunteer labour to make as much money as possible. If everyone had this goal in mind, no one would contribute to Waze for free, and the app would cease to function. Since Waze’s aims can’t be achieved if everyone shares them, the company is making an exception of itself and, therefore, is not operating based on fair rules.
The crux of the issue is not that Waze participates in capitalism. If Waze made money through fair means, it could be forgiven, but it exploits its users to do so. Any benefits from crowdsourcing are merely unintended consequences. Because Waze ultimately acts with immoral intentions, its use of crowdsourcing is unethical.
Who Knows Best?
“I make enough money in my job … I am a pay-it-forward guy.”
— Kent Smith, Waze Editor
From an outside perspective, it seems apparent that Waze takes advantage of its users, but how do the users themselves feel? Many volunteers actually don’t care that Waze profits from their work. They do what they do out of altruism, and there is no expectation of monetary or any compensation.
If users don’t feel exploited, can Waze’s crowdsourcing really be considered unethical?
To answer this question, we need to explore why users contribute to Waze. Waze is a navigation app foremost, but it’s also a platform that connects millions of people. The app contains many examples of community-oriented design that make it more similar to social media than navigation — some even liken reporting a hazard on Waze to sending out a tweet. The gamification of the editing process further attracts contributions, leading Waze to have a more dedicated user base than any other navigation app. Those who contribute to Waze feel they’re contributing to a community rather than a company. Their commitment and love for each other cause them to ignore the fact that they’re being taken advantage of, but that doesn’t mean Waze is off the hook.
Regardless of how users feel, Waze must treat them with respect and not just as a means to an end.
At the end of the day, users are humans, giving them dignity and making them worthy of respect. The most blatant way Waze fails to recognize this is by not fairly compensating users for their work. Some argue that users are compensated because they gain access to a better product. However, getting slightly faster navigation times pales in comparison to the massive financial rewards reaped by Waze. Volunteers do everything from keeping routes and roads up-to-date to providing real-time traffic alerts to translating new features. Some even dedicate up to 30–40 hours a week only to be rewarded with virtual badges. Meanwhile, Waze grew to become the second most popular navigation app in the world and was bought by Google for $1.3 billion in 2013.
Waze further treats users as a means to make money through the way it handles their data. Complex terms and services hide how the company utilizes user data.
Users are largely unaware of exactly how their data and contributions are being used, making informed consent impossible.
As with any entity that collects and stores a large amount of user data, Waze is responsible for protecting that data. Yet there are many examples of negligence in Waze’s data security, from accidentally giving third parties access to user data to providing too much publicly available information on individual users. The lack of transparency and adequate measures to protect user data indicates that Waze is not giving its users the respect they deserve.
The inherent uneven power dynamic between a billion-dollar company and its users has allowed Waze to get away with treating them as means. While individual users may not object, that doesn’t justify Waze’s actions. Users’ passion for the community causes them to live in blissful ignorance and is, in fact, what allows Waze to take advantage of them in the first place.
The Waze to Redemption
Using crowdsourcing, Waze has built a product that helps millions of people get where they need to be. Behind the app is a genuine community encompassing inclusivity, equity and other traits that all designs should strive towards. A broad range of voices are represented, and everyone has the same low barrier of entry to contribute. However, these positive attributes are happy accidents that shine through in spite of Waze’s shady practices.
To become a virtuous company, Waze must stop exploiting its users and see them as people rather than free labour.
Even if users don’t explicitly ask for it, Waze has an obligation to compensate them fairly for their work and not neglect their dignity as humans. The company needs to show respect by becoming fully transparent about its data use and diligently protecting user data. Furthermore, Waze must be more intentional in supporting its users to capitalize on the benefits of crowdsourcing. Currently, the community is self-regulated, but Waze can play a bigger role in moderating edits to prevent bias, making the editing process more accessible, and providing more resources for community building. Waze’s crowdsourcing has the potential to become an ethical exemplar, but the company needs to seize the opportunity and make deliberate changes.
