Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 228 posts

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#91

Post by zacharyvoase »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #87
Mz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion: This is not about the drivers. They were engaging in activity intended to be actively hostile to a competitor. That is why this is wrong. It is one thing to build a competitive business. It is another to try to actively undermine the competition, and not because your service is simply better. I get rather tired of a world in which "Well, technically, it didn't break any existing rules, so it should be oka…

Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me. My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we call out-of-the-box thinking? It seems like there's a fine l…

It’s not a fine line: signing up for a Lyft account requires explicitly agreeing to a ToS, which is a legally-binding contract.

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#92

Post by Mz »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #87
Mz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion: This is not about the drivers. They were engaging in activity intended to be actively hostile to a competitor. That is why this is wrong. It is one thing to build a competitive business. It is another to try to actively undermine the competition, and not because your service is simply better. I get rather tired of a world in which "Well, technically, it didn't break any existing rules, so it should be oka…

Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me. My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we call out-of-the-box thinking? It seems like there's a fine l…

As much as possible, I have no desire to talk down to anyone.

I have had a couple of law classes. I found them hard. I put a lot more effort into my first law class than the statistics class I took the same quarter and did vastly better in statistics. I also worked in a very legally driven industry for over five years. That was an experience sort of counter to my general nature. It was a growth experience.

I try hard to not talk down to anyone, if at all possible. I don't always get it right, but I don't think that fosters good discussion. If you can't ask the "dumb" questions, then we have a very big problem. At that point, only the people already in the know can talk at all and that's a very big problem.

So thank you for asking a sincere question in good faith. :-)

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#93

Post by thesmallestcat »

freewizard wrote: post #45

From the code name of these projects from Uber: Heaven(God View) / Hell, you can pretty much tell this company thinks it's playing god. This is terrifying and must be stopped!

Makes you think you should always choose the driest names possible, even for internal projects. That said, I agree, who would name a tool like this "Hell"??

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#95

Post by nikcub »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
david-cako wrote: post #12

Uber can't seem to catch a break these days, can they. Can anyone explain how this is different from Google and Facebook following you around with informatics everywhere you go on the internet? The favicon trick is a pretty good example.

As someone else said, Google and Facebook haven't been caught breaching terms of service or accessing others' "computers" [1] without authorization. Another interesting question is how Uber has gone from being untouchable to assailable since the sexual harassment scandals. Uber is a populist creature. Their users used to protect them from harassment. Now, fewer people show up for protests or call their representative…

> As someone else said, Google and Facebook haven't been caught breaching terms of service or accessing others' "computers" [1] without authorization.

Google developed a hack for Safari to bypass the default third-party cookie blocking[0]

Facebook made private profile information available to apps installed by friends[1]

It seems rather arbitrary to distinguish Uber from the multiple occasions both Facebook and Google have had to answer or settle with the FTC for mishandling private user data.

[0] http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-pays-17m-to-settle-safar...

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/092-3184/f...

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#96

Post by sillysaurus3 »

zacharyvoase wrote: post #91
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me. My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we call out-of-the-box thinking? It seems like there's a fine l…

It’s not a fine line: signing up for a Lyft account requires explicitly agreeing to a ToS, which is a legally-binding contract.

Are you sure you've fully read and understood every ToS for every product you've ever signed up for, and also never violated any clause?

I know that this is a different situation, because you could make the argument that if you're a business, you'd better fully read and understand every clause of every ToS. But it was difficult to integrate that mentality when we, as consumers, don't treat ToS's as legally binding. And most of us didn't have an ethics course in university. So when we're being asked by an employer to do X, and X is something that we do as consumers, then at what point are we supposed to think "Nope, this is wrong"?

The point is, treating these issues like they're incredibly obvious helps no one. It takes more effort to debate it in good faith than to simply assert "It's obvious," but it doesn't change anybody's mind.

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#97

Post by an_account »

throwaway4job wrote: post #52
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #2

So, no one was really able to answer my question last thread. In fact, I mostly got snarky condescending replies. I've stopped caring about such things though, so hopefully good-faith questions are still welcome: What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? What is wrong with using a competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them? Not only did it not harm Lyft drivers, but it actually aided them:…

I'll offer a good faith answer, even though I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss it as snarky condescension. Point 1: Lyft's API comes with a contractual agreement regarding acceptable usage. Uber deliberately breached that agreement. This is a breach of property rights. Point 2: They breached Lyft's property rights with the intent of stalking Lyft drivers, and of harming Lyft as an organization. This shows the breach of p…

Which laws did Uber break? You said it was a "clear" violation, but it seems like there's a lot of debate.

I don't know enough either way, so I'd like to hear your explanation.

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#98

Post by JustSomeNobody »

dinedal wrote: post #28

How does anyone, when asked to build such a program, not raise an objection, or say something? The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is true.

Just because you write code, doesn't make you any more morally sound than the person who asks you to write code.

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#99

Post by mquander »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #87
Mz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion: This is not about the drivers. They were engaging in activity intended to be actively hostile to a competitor. That is why this is wrong. It is one thing to build a competitive business. It is another to try to actively undermine the competition, and not because your service is simply better. I get rather tired of a world in which "Well, technically, it didn't break any existing rules, so it should be oka…

Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me. My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we call out-of-the-box thinking? It seems like there's a fine l…

I think the relevant part that distinguishes whether it's ethical is whether you are deceptively taking advantage of another party. If Uber wouldn't be willing to tell Lyft what they are doing with their API, and Lyft would stop them if they knew, then that's a good signal that it's not very ethical to do it.

(Of course, if you're a consequentialist, then you might still like the action if it were serving some greater good. But this seems more like a zero-sum game between Uber and Lyft, at best.)

I suspect that if you were working for the same startup and you were tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road, and make sure Lyft can't tell we're doing it" then you might hesitate.

Re: Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

#100

Post by phoenixProgram »

As bad as this is, techcrunch should be noted for its bravery in using a term that is sensitive with Christians. I'm not sure exactly why common sense and decency has fallen to a level where a name like "Hell" can describe any program invented by human device. That is, outside of civilian terror. Supposedly the government maintains some monopoly on civilian terror for the greater good, and leaves the meaning of that up to the civilians who have a little experience in how that term is used or abused by those who make claims on the greater good.

The notion that corporations can terrorize civilians outside of this moral universe is not acceptable. We can't allow a chaos of civilian terror that is "made legal" by some court decision. The notion that democracy will devolve into a paroxysm of legal terror must be treated seriously and swiftly by those who are equipped to handle the mental load.

Post reply on HN