21–30 of 228 posts
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.
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:…
"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Uber should stop doing negative things then.
You think the same about United and now American? Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably an unauthorized use of the API; Lyft's API is not public, and requires a separate agreement to use. https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-term... One section I'd draw particular attention to reads, "You Will Not: a. use the Platform or Service in any manner that is competitive to Lyft or the Service, including in connection with any application, website or other product or service that…
Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
If I set up a server to respond to only the people I choose, what restrictions can I make on it in your perfect world?
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.
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 representatives to defend Travis and friends. Part of this is because, in most places, there are other options. Part of it is they lost their base.
[1] See 18 U.S.C. § 1030 a/k/a the CFAA
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.
Maybe if they didn't act like coke-addled frat-boys in Vegas, they'd get better press.
The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
Why is that clause contrary to public policy? If I provide information to my customers, I have to provide the same information directly to my competitor? Why does that make the world better?
In this particular case, it makes the world better by recognizing that "prohibiting competition" is not a worthwhile goal for the state to promote. We recently had another spurt of articles praising California's policy of not enforcing noncompetes as to employees. Why are noncompetes for customers a better idea?