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

Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#221

Post by teacup50 »

thinkling wrote: post #186
teacup50 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how Apple Pay works; other than using a proxy CC# and hiding your info from the actual sales clerk, Apple Pay isn't more private than magstripe cards — merchants can still identify you, and it actually adds another party to the transaction: Apple.

Apple claim that they get no data about individual transactions, at least not in a way that can be tied to specific customers.

Read the claims more closely (or read the relevant emvco spec). They don't claim to receive no data, they only claim to not track you.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#222

Post by [deleted] »

Asparagirl wrote: post #3

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentia…

[deleted]

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#223

Post by SamReidHughes »

bcantrill wrote: post #23
dang wrote: post #13

Buzzfeed stories are normally penalized, but we take the penalty off for major stories. We've done that here. HN tends to frown on media controversy, but since this story seems destined to be above the line in any case, it may as well be the original source. We've demoted the other posts on the same story as duplicates.

To say that this is "media controversy" borders on the absurd: this is entirely inappropriate and indefensible behavior from a top executive at a top company -- and it raises all sorts of legitimate questions about corporate culture and how companies internalize public criticism. You use the passive voice when you say that "it seems destined to be above the line" when in fact it is above the line because many in the…

> In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?

If you're interpreting mods' behavior in maintaining this site as paternalism and think a set of randos voting on articles that attract their attention is an entity to which the verb "trusted" could even be applied, you are completely out of touch with reality.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#224

Post by teacup50 »

ghshephard wrote: post #216
teacup50 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how Apple Pay works; other than using a proxy CC# and hiding your info from the actual sales clerk, Apple Pay isn't more private than magstripe cards — merchants can still identify you, and it actually adds another party to the transaction: Apple.

How does the merchant identify you? My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don't share your name with them during an Apple Pay transaction. Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.

> My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don't share your name with them during an Apple Pay transaction.

If you check the EMVco specs (they're a doozy! http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21), merchants still receive your name.

The only thing that tokenization provides is a proxy card number.

> Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.

That's not actually true; if you read the fine print (or the emvco specs), you'll note that they can track a lot more than they might claim to.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_20...

They disclose up-front: "Apple may receive anonymous transaction information such as the approximate time and location of the transaction, which helps improve Apple Pay and other Apple products and services."

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#225

Post by imanaccount247 »

mipapage wrote: post #220
imanaccount247 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just downloaded it to support them. The more absurd the PC bullshit gets, the more the rest of us will push back just to spite you. I can't wait for my new shirt to arrive.

Well, its not PC is it? It is holding oneself to a standard. It is clear that this man - and Uber it would seem - are not behaving to a standard that people would support. A concept so simple that is lost on so many.

>Well, its not PC is it?

Really? Then why is it so notable that the person is a "female journalist"? Why are people deliberately distorting "journalists are dragging our private affairs out to use against us, we should do it to them" as "he's threatening to reveal the locations of people's children"?

>are not behaving to a standard that people would support.

Many people do support, that's precisely what I said. I am supporting them, lots of people are supporting them.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#226

Post by DontBeADick »

ceph_ wrote: post #174
DontBeADick wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats. "Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became: > threatening to reveal details of the location of their children There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

Are you saying that wasn't a threat? Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?

The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#227

Post by imanaccount247 »

scott_s wrote: post #213
imanaccount247 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say you had to use them. I said that when you come out and say "I'm boycotting X because they violated SOCJUS law" you help them more than you hurt them. Because the number of people who think the PC/SJW nonsense has gotten absurd is much higher than the number of people who think it is cool.

I think far, far more people will find Emil Michael's statements unacceptable than not. Including, I think, Uber itself.

I think if the majority of people would find his statements unacceptable, then people would not feel the need to deliberately misrepresent his statements to make them seem less acceptable.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#228

Post by [deleted] »

imanaccount247 wrote: post #177
andy_ppp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has now been deleted from my phone. I hope others consider doing the same.

I just downloaded it to support them. The more absurd the PC bullshit gets, the more the rest of us will push back just to spite you. I can't wait for my new shirt to arrive.

[deleted]

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#229

Post by Dylan16807 »

potatolicious wrote: post #171
DontBeADick wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last 7 tweets were bashing Uber. You completely made up the "threatening to reveal the location of children" part. It's clear you're just another bored, delusional social justice warrior who wants to make a cause out of nothing. Sorry I don't share your hatred for Uber or your willingness to distort the truth to serve a personal agenda.

> "It's clear you're just another bored, delusional social justice warrior who wants to make a cause out of nothing." No. Just no. This type of behavior is unacceptable around here - it may be in vogue around /r/TumblrInAction or GamerGate but it has no place here. If you want to attack the substance of someone's argument fine but personal attacks, especially name calling are completely out of bounds in any sane venu…

"bored" and "delusional" are personal attacks, but isn't "SJW" about the argument? Has that term become totally muddled when I wasn't paying attention?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#230

Post by Dylan16807 »

ceph_ wrote: post #174
DontBeADick wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats. "Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became: > threatening to reveal details of the location of their children There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

Are you saying that wasn't a threat? Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?

>Does that make it better?

It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.

Post reply on HN