231–240 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. The State has a lot more power on its side, making the former scenario much more of a threat.
Except the NSA is an arm of a democratically elected government. Tell me when the public Uber elections start.
Yes, and look what that's gotten us so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the point: The point, as I see it, is that your data is never really safe. I don't much care if Uber can be trusted or not, when the State can always step in and hoover up whatever data Uber has. If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces. As long as the State can't be trusted, the rest i…
Wait, that makes no sense. Your argument is that since there's one (huge) malicious actor we haven't stopped we should not care about any other malicious actors? "Privacy" is not binary. You can have privacy from Uber even while the government spies on you, and the situation when only one of them does is better than the one when both do.
I guess the analogy I'd use would be this: worrying about Uber in the era of rampant warrant-less nation-state surveillance is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, that makes no sense. Your argument is that since there's one (huge) malicious actor we haven't stopped we should not care about any other malicious actors? "Privacy" is not binary. You can have privacy from Uber even while the government spies on you, and the situation when only one of them does is better than the one when both do.
I'm more afraid of the USG than I am of Uber. And while the line you're talking about clearly exists, I consider it such a thin line as to be essentially moot. I guess the analogy I'd use would be this: worrying about Uber in the era of rampant warrant-less nation-state surveillance is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Suggesting that the threat posed by Uber and by the government are just different points on the same scale is wrong. They're entirely different problems, and they'll need different solutions.
Can we make the rule that it's not OK to post negative stories about YCombinator companies on this site? There are a million places to talk negative about everyhing. Here, we're trying to build things. We know no one is perfect. Lets make this place a bastion of positivity instead of negativity.
You really should not be being downvoted as your opinion is shared (in my experience) by the majority of struggling startup founders. The founders want to get big and successful and view negativity by techies as at best needless pessimism and at worse as symptomatic of a kind of anti-capitalism. Capitalists who value the free market who are also the bosses and entrepreneurs see opposition to their money making effort…
It just happens to be hosted on a subdomain of a startup accelerator but the overwhelming majority of people who read it are not involved with startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is that simple. In my case, I got a card for a family member. But there is no verification done so you can literally get a card with any name on it. It is still tied to your identity through the bank.
But they may not like it when you have 73 active cards/names - so making this a mandatory thing would affect banks' processes. Also even if you're being literal and can do it in 17 seconds (i.e. after opening a new tab, 30 seconds from now you can have a card in the name of Mary Smith on its way to you) I and I think most people using online banking don't have it so smooth.
I also checked US Bank and American Express and you are correct, the process is not smooth at all. US Bank wants me to print, sign, and mail it! American Express wants to verify identity of the additional user using an SSN. That makes no sense of course, because they might not even have an SSN and the main account holder is still contractually obliged to pay the account balance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That popup is standard for any app that is approved to potentially use location in background and you don't use often. I think it's meant to discourage apps to ask location in background altogether
When they migrated to this style of permission it seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity to give the user the option of choosing "no, only when the app is open"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they migrated to this style of permission it seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity to give the user the option of choosing "no, only when the app is open"
Uber removed the "only when open" ability unfortunately, so that would not be relevant here.
Uber would like to access your location at all times
[Yes, allow in the background]
[Yes, only when open]
[No, deny all together]Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great short-term solution, bad long-term solution.
Why? If someone tries a charge it'll get rejected since the name and expiration date won't match (unless you get crazy [un]lucky). Just change it to that and never use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you lose your credit card and you call your credit card company and them them that you lost it, they issue you a new card with new numbers; this way anybody that had the information on the card would not be able to make further transactions. I would consider the card lost when a company would not delete the credit card information on my request to delete the information.
A new number doesn't necessarily prevent charges from vendors who had the old one. For your convenience the banks actually allow new charges on the old cards after they are cancelled. I assume they whitelist vendors that have good reputations or filter based on patterns of charges against your account which you have not disputed. Verizon was able to charge against my old account for over a year. I kept getting snail…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you occasionally drive Uber as an experiment/hobby, not as a job, which is not the same experience as relying on it for your next meal.
That's uncalled for. How many software developers ever bother to use the software they develop, or work with (or even talk to) the people who use the software as part of their job? Actually doing the job that your users do, even part time, is fantastic dedication. Doing it full-time is absurd; when would he make use of what he's learned?