131–140 of 147 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the equivalent (US) military acronym is "DOTMLPF" - Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOTMLPF I'm a systems engineer that works for the military and I've never heard of "POSTED", it may be a NASA thing since they kinda have their own flavor of SE.
I'm AU and the guys I deal with are ex-ADF so I don't know. I'm glad that there's a wiki link for that one though, that helps when I next have to reference it :) Same idea either way - the system is far more than just the equipment/technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. "Off the record" isn't some magic phrase you can use to stop a journalist from reporting what you say. It's a carefully constructed agreement between a source and a journalist. That agreement will cover what material is divulged and how it is sourced. It is wrong to sugg…
This is dis-engenuous. One of the guests invited a tabloid reporter, did not appear to disclose the terms of the invitation to this person, and the result is predictable. The ethical nuances here are lost because you have a sketchy company and an ethically challenged publication. But in the same vein as the Mozilla incident, freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech...does not protect a citizen from another citizen…
People need to realise that journalists will report everything. They will report as much as they possibly can. Unless you have a written agreement with a specific journalist that covers what is or isn't allowed to be printed you must assume that they will print everything.
The meeting was not private.
You keep saying things like "ethically challenged". That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"The press is our shield against all the evil that is done against the public by governments and corporations." This seems incredibly naive to me. It's certainly idealistic, and it's extremely difficult to believe that the media, at least the American media, isn't heavily biased by capitalism. Sensationalism does more harm than good, and it's trivial to "buy" press coverage. The New York Times may very well have enou…
But there are many idealistic journalists (look at ProPublica, for many examples) who are doing important work, exposing things that aren't always sexy, but are definitely in the public's interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My feeling also. If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. The Federal government is one of the worst offenders at being careless with personal data and of using it for political purposes when it suits them. I'm not defending Uber here, but this is just grandstanding by Frankin.
OTOH, Frankenstein is the chair of the committee whose job is to oversee these matters. Perhaps the Senate Intelligence committee would be the analogous thing for government surveillance: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html
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.
At the same time, we run into a problem with your unease, namely that we have to catalogue and rank by severity every privacy breach before addressing any individual one. Which is the same as saying we'll never address any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is dis-engenuous. One of the guests invited a tabloid reporter, did not appear to disclose the terms of the invitation to this person, and the result is predictable. The ethical nuances here are lost because you have a sketchy company and an ethically challenged publication. But in the same vein as the Mozilla incident, freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech...does not protect a citizen from another citizen…
> This is dis-engenuous. One of the guests invited a tabloid reporter, did not appear to disclose the terms of the invitation to this person, and the result is predictable. People need to realise that journalists will report everything. They will report as much as they possibly can. Unless you have a written agreement with a specific journalist that covers what is or isn't allowed to be printed you must assume that t…
That's a gutter dwelling argument that is bullshit on both-sides. Because it supports the idea that private citizens should also be free to trash journalists. After all, if they have no ethics, they have no moral high ground to use as a defense against their own tactics.
So you are arguing the point of the Uber-douche.
Nice one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. At least someone is speaking up. You criticize Al Franken for not going after everyone else as well, but why not criticize the other 99 senators who haven't done anything . I apologize in advance if I'm missing another senator that has done anything like this about privacy.
Rand Paul has done something far more important that weighing in on a private business policy.. He (along with a few others) have been extremely outspoken against the Patriot Act and warrantless NSA spying. Where's Franken's letter to Obama demanding "executive action" to suspend warrantless information gathering by the government. If Uner wants to be a shit, we don't have to use Uber. If I don't want my personal inf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is dis-engenuous. One of the guests invited a tabloid reporter, did not appear to disclose the terms of the invitation to this person, and the result is predictable. People need to realise that journalists will report everything. They will report as much as they possibly can. Unless you have a written agreement with a specific journalist that covers what is or isn't allowed to be printed you must assume that t…
That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics. That's a gutter dwelling argument that is bullshit on both-sides. Because it supports the idea that private citizens should also be free to trash journalists. After all, if they have no ethics, they have no moral high ground to use as a defense against their own tactics. So you are arguing the point of the Uber-douche. Nice one.
You've twisted that to suggest that journalists are the same as an Uber executive digging dirt. The difference is that the journalist publishes under their name, via an editor and publisher, and is prepared to go to jail to protect their source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics. That's a gutter dwelling argument that is bullshit on both-sides. Because it supports the idea that private citizens should also be free to trash journalists. After all, if they have no ethics, they have no moral high ground to use as a defense against their own tactics. So you are arguing the point of the Uber-douche. Nice one.
The meeting was not off the record. Don't invite journalists to a meeting and expect them to not report what you say at that meeting. If you need to go off the record you need an agreement with the journalist. You've twisted that to suggest that journalists are the same as an Uber executive digging dirt. The difference is that the journalist publishes under their name, via an editor and publisher, and is prepared to…
As someone else has written, if you think you need a (written) contract to enforce ethics, you don't understand the concept of 'ethics'. Contracts are useful because they create legal -- not simply ethical -- obligations.
In any event, if you don't appreaciate any of this, we can agree to disagree.