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

Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

franken.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 147 posts

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

#3

Post by mikeyouse »

Note that Franken wrote this as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. The committee's mandate / scope:

    Jurisdiction: (1) Oversight of laws and policies governing
    the collection, protection, use and dissemination of 
    commercial information by the private sector, including 
    online behavioral advertising, privacy within social 
    networking websites and other online privacy issues; 
    (2) Enforcement and implementation of commercial
    information privacy laws and policies; (3) Use of 
    technology by the private sector to protect privacy, 
    enhance transparency and encourage innovation; 
    (4) Privacy standards for the collection, retention, use 
    and dissemination of personally identifiable commercial 
    information; and (5) Privacy implications of new or 
    emerging technologies.

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

#4

Post by tomcam »

I dislike Al Franken's politics greatly, but I think it's every bit his right to use the bully pulpit this way (I mean this sincerely). If Uber did track a journalist it is reprehensible.

But how Uber could benefit from answering this fishing expedition? If I were Uber I'd simply stonewall. They are under no legal compunction to answer, and virtually no answer would help them.

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

#5

Post by toomuchtodo »

tomcam wrote: post #4

I dislike Al Franken's politics greatly, but I think it's every bit his right to use the bully pulpit this way (I mean this sincerely). If Uber did track a journalist it is reprehensible. But how Uber could benefit from answering this fishing expedition? If I were Uber I'd simply stonewall. They are under no legal compunction to answer, and virtually no answer would help them.

> If I were Uber I'd simply stonewall.

The federal government can make your life extremely difficult, fully funded startup or not.

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

#6

Post by brianpgordon »

tomcam wrote: post #4

I dislike Al Franken's politics greatly, but I think it's every bit his right to use the bully pulpit this way (I mean this sincerely). If Uber did track a journalist it is reprehensible. But how Uber could benefit from answering this fishing expedition? If I were Uber I'd simply stonewall. They are under no legal compunction to answer, and virtually no answer would help them.

I imagine this is just a courtesy; if they decline to answer, then the committee can issue a subpoena and compel them to.

Here's a nice white paper on Congress's subpoena power: http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/ec1203b2-a787-44...

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

#7

Post by msherry »

brianpgordon wrote: post #6
tomcam wrote: post #4

I dislike Al Franken's politics greatly, but I think it's every bit his right to use the bully pulpit this way (I mean this sincerely). If Uber did track a journalist it is reprehensible. But how Uber could benefit from answering this fishing expedition? If I were Uber I'd simply stonewall. They are under no legal compunction to answer, and virtually no answer would help them.

I imagine this is just a courtesy; if they decline to answer, then the committee can issue a subpoena and compel them to. Here's a nice white paper on Congress's subpoena power: http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/ec1203b2-a787-44...

That was really interesting, thanks. In particular,

"The Enforcement Process. Congressional investigations often begin informally, with the interested committee or subcommittee first seeking information on a voluntary basis (i.e., by sending a letter request or asking for an informal interview), rather than by issuing compulsory subpoenas. Although there is no legal obligation that a party comply with such a request, it is typically in the responding party’s best interest to do so"

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

#8

Post by A_COMPUTER »

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.

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

#9

Post by andrewpi »

brianpgordon wrote: post #6
tomcam wrote: post #4

I dislike Al Franken's politics greatly, but I think it's every bit his right to use the bully pulpit this way (I mean this sincerely). If Uber did track a journalist it is reprehensible. But how Uber could benefit from answering this fishing expedition? If I were Uber I'd simply stonewall. They are under no legal compunction to answer, and virtually no answer would help them.

I imagine this is just a courtesy; if they decline to answer, then the committee can issue a subpoena and compel them to. Here's a nice white paper on Congress's subpoena power: http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/ec1203b2-a787-44...

Franken will no longer be Chairman of this committee in January when the Democrats are no longer in control of the US Senate.

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

#10

Post by w4 »

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 legislative action). Assuming nothing about Uber's user terms and agreements aren't unlawful, it's almost certainly the case that, as alluded to by Franken's letter, users of Uber have agreed to provide Uber with this sort of access to their usage of the app.

So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is.

Post reply on HN