221–230 of 805 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the better question is: Does the law that Uber is subverting make sense in the first place?
And a better question than that is: should a corporation be picking and choosing which laws they follow and which they don't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My perspective is the opposite. In a world where large multinationals have the power to evade the law in a deliberate and systematic way like this, it's easy for governments to claim they need the same kind of power. Things like this are exactly what bureaucrats point to when they make their arguments for a surveillance state. I don't like the US government much, but I like it a lot better than the average multinatio…
I don't like the US government much, but I like it a lot better than the average multinational. When it comes down to it, we don't have more than our choice of devils. If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. The state is a huge…
Even ignoring the fact that Uber might become a monopoly, this ignores extrenalities caused by corporations.
You don't have to purchase chemicals from a chemical factory to be impacted by them dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply because it is cheaper.
It took me about 8 paragraphs in to figure out what Greyball is, so to save you the time: Uber used various data sources to identify which people are likely government officials who are trying to collect incriminating data on them, and then blocks them from the service so they can't be caught in sting operations. But there's a lot in the article that doesn't make sense: >Other techniques included looking at the user’…
Maybe not a popular opinion but I find this entire thing pure genius. >I couldn't find a good source, but it doesn't seem like that's something a CC merchant would have access to. Do they really get to see that? The first 6 digits of a credit card can identify the issuing bank (BIN number - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_card_number ). If you ask your merchant they can readily provide you and up to date list.…
It took me about 8 paragraphs in to figure out what Greyball is, so to save you the time: Uber used various data sources to identify which people are likely government officials who are trying to collect incriminating data on them, and then blocks them from the service so they can't be caught in sting operations. But there's a lot in the article that doesn't make sense: >Other techniques included looking at the user’…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People generally feel more empowered to call out a company when others do. It's not so much about the media piling on Uber, as employees feeling safe in talking about their company's problems.
I don't think NYTimes need empowerment or to wait for someone to call out Uber to publish this story. I can only guess of a negative PR campaign from an apparent competitor, it's very obvious if you see anonymous medium posts(minus the susan flower's) and the hyperbole created about Travis's video and now this. Like everyone, I want them to pay for the culture they created at their company which resulted in employee…
tl;dr Fuck 'em.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not a popular opinion but I find this entire thing pure genius. >I couldn't find a good source, but it doesn't seem like that's something a CC merchant would have access to. Do they really get to see that? The first 6 digits of a credit card can identify the issuing bank (BIN number - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_card_number ). If you ask your merchant they can readily provide you and up to date list.…
> [credit card BIN numbers] plus public payroll records Do California public records really make available where specific public employees bank?
What if local law enforcement officer was posing undercover as an Uber customer as part of a sexual assault investigation or trying to track down all drivers in relation to a recent crime? This is framed as getting around restrictions on taxi services, but any time you proactively thwart law enforcement, you're inviting a lot of dangerous unintended consequences. None of which I'm sure Uber is concerned about.
A sideways thought: this could be a good way for a criminal to vet someone before a meeting. "Take an Uber and meet me at 1st and Green."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What if you were just robbed or assaulted by a driver and Uber sends fake data about nearby cars when a cop is trying to use the app to track them down? Then I'd say "wow, why is this cop using an inaccurate and highly-likely-to-be-thrown-out-in-court method when the LEA has a stingray that allows them to track the driver directly and accurately?" >this is local law enforcement Yes, the poor, good, moral, ethical lo…
Enough with the derailment tactics already, this doesn't make for a civil discussion. Bringing in new arguments like referring to stingrays (as itf they were owned or used universally) is BS and just a way to avoid responding to the legitimate question that was presented by the gp.
And to add (edit): It's not a derailment, it's the logical conclusion that any area that has enough economic activity to be target by Uber definitely has enough resources to supply LEA with a stingray.
This is certainly a hardball approach, but I see nothing especially wrong with it. When you install Uber, you authorize it to send location data. If you happen to work at a transportation enforcement office, that is going to be immediately apparent to them unless you take countermeasures, such as using a GPS spoofing app. If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource…
> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me What an absolutely absurd way to characterise the actions of those who enforce law with those who attempt to break it.
Not that it will ever stop them, but I often build a clause into the TOS of my websites that law enforcement personnel may not use the site without prior authorization. I have no idea if this will ever stand up in court, but perhaps this clause will, for example, be useful in defeating a search warrant for user information since the suspicion upon which the warrant is based would necessarily have been obtained without authorization unless the government asked for permission to access the site in advance. A healthy disdain for government agents makes for a healthy, free society.