Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#41

Post by c9a » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:06 AM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #20

Franken supported the NSA as the surveillance scandal broke: "I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people." [ http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least... ]. I thought it was relevant.

Here's a relevant op-ed he wrote for CNN near the same time, where he called for more transparency on domestic surveillance.

http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=2513

> Since I came to the Senate, I've been working to fix this. I've supported amendments to the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have required greater public reporting on the use of surveillance authorities and greater disclosures about the legal opinions and safeguards that support them. When those amendments failed, I voted against renewing both of these laws.

From the article you posted, you left out a few relevant quotes.

> In an early 2006 AlterNet interview before he was officially running for Senate, Franken disparaged the Bush administration's NSA warrantless-surveillance program

> At a September 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the reauthorization of expiring components of the USA Patriot Act, Franken read the Fourth Amendment to the assistant attorney general for national security as a means of questioning the act's "roving wiretap" provision. Franken would also eventually vote against a 2012 reauthorization of the FISA amendments that give the government wide surveillance authority.

> Before voting against reauthorizing the FISA amendments last year, Sen. Franken also cosponsored and voted for three amendments that his office says would have "improved the bill on transparency and privacy."

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#42

Post by rtpg » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:07 AM UTC

w4 wrote: post #10

A_COMPUTER wrote: post #8

So, I completely agree with this letter, but I felt a sense of unease reading it. I realized why. Other companies are as bad or worse about privacy, where are all those letters? I wish there were a lot more of these and wonder if the only reason this one exists is because the blowup with Uber was so visible and so it can be used for political posturing.

This was my reaction as well. Yes, Uber's behavior here is reprehensible. But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, and I have to wonder what, if any, authority the government could exert in these circumstances (disregarding the appropriateness of the use of said authority, or any potential le…

>But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in,

Complaining about gov't behaviour compared to private enterprise is like complaining about how kernel-level processes can do so much more than userland processes.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#43

Post by rtpg » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:08 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

smt88 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an irrelevant point, but it's a stretch to call a 5-year-old company with $2B in revenue a "startup".

You're an experiment/startup until you're profitable, at which point you become a real business.

Loads of real businesses are not profitable (and will eventually fall over).

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#44

Post by travisp » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:10 AM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #11

A_COMPUTER wrote: post #8

So, I completely agree with this letter, but I felt a sense of unease reading it. I realized why. Other companies are as bad or worse about privacy, where are all those letters? I wish there were a lot more of these and wonder if the only reason this one exists is because the blowup with Uber was so visible and so it can be used for political posturing.

If you're a company with a lot of user data along these lines, this letter serves as notice that you'd better be able to answer these questions for your own company. Who knows when The Eye will glare your way?

>Who knows when The Eye will glare your way?

It seems like arbitrary application of political power in this way is more likely to increase political lobbying dollars than anything (make The Eye glare a different way or get your competitor).

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#45

Post by kjksf » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:11 AM UTC

debacle wrote: post #28

It seems like a lot of things are coming home to roost right now for Uber. As with many things, I think that Uber is the first player in an arena where the second player tends to survive (because they learn from all the first player's mistakes for free, the groundwork is laid, etc). The barrier to entry for an Uber competitor is quite low and trust is the only thing that keeps Uber afloat. If they don't realize that…

The "low barrier to entry" is repeated on every Uber story and I don't get it.

It's a business with a very strong network effects: you need both sides of the market because without drivers, users are not interested and without users drivers are not interested.

Uber seems to have a big lead over competition here, is growing like crazy and they raised insane amounts of capital so that they can grow faster than competition.

But even without network effects, I don't see that as an easy to replicate business: * you need a great iOS app * you need a great Android app * you need a backed that is both fast and has rock solid 24/7 reliability. it can't be like Twitter in early days * you need to become a payment processor that interjects itself between users and drivers, which I'm sure comes with its own set of legal and logistic challenges * and you need to do it internationally * and you need a massive operation team whose job is to onboard new drivers (recruit, train, supervise) * you need a legal team because every state can have different rules * and you need them also internationally

I really don't see any of the above as easy to pull off and to do it all well, that requires both technical and operational excellence that few have.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#46

Post by srs0001 » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:11 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #39

NamTaf wrote: post #31

I note that many of the questions are around the processes, training, rules, etc. that govern the use of technology developed by Uber. This is important. Systems Engineering teaches the concept of POSTED: People, Organisation, Support, Training, Equipment and Doctrine. When a system is developed, it must give consideration to all of these aspects. Failing to do so means you design an incomplete system. In this case,…

[deleted]

I don't think the condescending tone is necessary—there are actually about ten million links if you spell organization correctly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22People%2C+Organisation%2C...

EDIT: Removed quotes.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#47

Post by peteretep » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:11 AM UTC

lmg643 wrote: post #26

w4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my reaction as well. Yes, Uber's behavior here is reprehensible. But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, and I have to wonder what, if any, authority the government could exert in these circumstances (disregarding the appropriateness of the use of said authority, or any potential le…

agreed. my first thought in reading this: "Dear Mr. Kalanick - how dare you allow your staff to announce an idea to spy on the American people and use the information you learn against them? Didn't you know that privilege is exclusively for the US government? You know we will partner with you to abuse the vast information available on the habits of Americans through your service when the time is right - no need to ge…

The biggest thing that will disenfranchise your political weight is dismissing the government as a homogenous mass, moving in lock-step, that "they're all as bad as each other".

Uncle Sam is _people_. Good people, bad people, influential people, less influential people.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#48

Post by debacle » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:12 AM UTC

imjk wrote: post #40

debacle wrote: post #28

It seems like a lot of things are coming home to roost right now for Uber. As with many things, I think that Uber is the first player in an arena where the second player tends to survive (because they learn from all the first player's mistakes for free, the groundwork is laid, etc). The barrier to entry for an Uber competitor is quite low and trust is the only thing that keeps Uber afloat. If they don't realize that…

I keep hearing this argument that the barrier to entry is so low for an Uber competitor, but I think people massively underestimate the difficulty of successfully running a system like Uber. Here in Boston where Uber has wide adoption, I just watched a competitor with an impressive team (Hailo) fold up shop as they struggled to gain traction and compete. Where are all these other competitors that are going to come al…

The hailo model seems very different from the Uber/Lyft model. More upscale, so I'm guessing a higher barrier to entry for drivers (and it looks like a smaller driver pool).

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#49

Post by smrtinsert » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:13 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #38

This is officially the most blown-out-of-proportion story in the history of the Internet. When was the last time the US Senate got involved after you went on a rant at a party? I'm certain that Sarah Lacy is enjoying both the attention and the money from pageviews, but this is getting ridiculous.

As soon as someone jokes at about the potential of putting someones family in harms way, it is no longer a joke.

I couldn't stand SL at TC but I'm 100% behind on her this one.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#50

Post by 001sky » Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 3:13 AM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #17

w4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my reaction as well. Yes, Uber's behavior here is reprehensible. But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, and I have to wonder what, if any, authority the government could exert in these circumstances (disregarding the appropriateness of the use of said authority, or any potential le…

I see what you're saying, but there are two things that make this more egregious than other (assumed) offenses. First, Uber did this brazenly and, one could argue, openly. Their hubris needs to be curbed this way. Second, Uber explicitly wanted to go after a member of the press. The press is our shield against all the evil that is done against the public by governments and corporations. We need our journalists to fee…

First, Uber did this brazenly and, one could argue, openly

The reported quote was couched in the hypothetical; reported out of an 'off the record' private event; by a reporter that was the +1 of an invite.

Those are major caveats. While they don't excuse anything, they also (frankly) answer several of the senators questions.

I find it un-imaginable that Franken (or anyone) has never articulated views in the hypothetical, that may or may not have been in line with "corporate policy".

Imagine if the 405 freeway was mic'd during rush hour. We'd have prisons full of criminals charged with thought crimes.

All that being said, Uber needs to get its act together. Transportation is a heavily regulated industry for a variety of reasons. There are personal safety issues involved, interstate commerce, and all kinds of local issues.

Uber needs to get itself in a position where politicians and the public can trust the company to operate in a manner deserving of the public trust. And in that direction, it seems to me at least, that they are showing a pattern of behaviour that is more at issue than any single event.

It seems their general approach is open to question, on quite a few fronts. Wether or not rebellious, upstart brands are a problem, I don't think thats it. They seem to take on take on a air privledged 'bro's' who are untouchable and shady. And that is something that they don't want to be type-cast as, when ultimately their business relies on the public's trust.