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

301–310 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#301

Post by [deleted] »

potatolicious wrote: post #185
aetherson wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that the information pulled form the journalist's profile was pretty innocuous, or else they would have made more of a big deal about it. But at the same time, the point isn't that "the Uber GM found some hideously private information about the journalist," the point is that regardless of what their "information policy" is, the GM could access the account of the journalist, and was apparently comfortable do…

Agree. In contrast, when I worked at Amazon, customer privacy was pretty religiously protected. To access detailed customer information required getting a one-time-use key, which is generated from a request that references other documentation (bug reports, customer support requests, etc) as well as a justification. This key would only work against a single customer, and expires after some time. The requests themselve…

[deleted]

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#302

Post by xorcist »

philwelch wrote: post #249
Asparagirl wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family? Again,…

Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it. Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.

Oh, victim blaming. Classy.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#303

Post by xorcist »

There's been a number of negative articles about Google during the past years. Some for good reasons, some for bad. Some honest, some paid shills.

Imagine Larry Page saying: We'll sift through whatever data we've got on you and see what dirt we can find.

No need to imagine the threats against family. No need for any of the more nasty details. Just the basic premise, but in the setting of an established Silicon Valley company.

Done yet? No. Because you couldn't. Because any serious CEO worth their salt simply wouldn't.

And all those of you whose natural reponse is to defend these people, please imagine yourself doing it for Page as well. Would you, really?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#304

Post by Dylan16807 »

r00fus wrote: post #275
Dylan16807 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they're talking about "digging up dirt" I don't see how that's going to apply to children. Context is important, and reducing it to 'threat' is misleading. Even though yes it is a subtype of threat.

Really? You don't know anyone who has a special-needs child? The public at large can be very unkind to any who aren't "normal". And that's leaving alone those disturbed individuals who just like to "break things" and are just looking for a target. Even simply exposing that information is a threat, possibly causing a chilling effect - which is exactly what this Uber exec wants.

Knowing that a child exists with special needs doesn't hurt the child...

>disturbed individuals [...] looking for a target

What??? Where did you get here from "digging up dirt". (For one, you don't need dirt to post someone's name on /b/ or whatever you have in mind.) The level of hyperbole on this submission is awful and pains me to read.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#306

Post by Dylan16807 »

xorcist wrote: post #303

There's been a number of negative articles about Google during the past years. Some for good reasons, some for bad. Some honest, some paid shills. Imagine Larry Page saying: We'll sift through whatever data we've got on you and see what dirt we can find. No need to imagine the threats against family. No need for any of the more nasty details. Just the basic premise, but in the setting of an established Silicon Valley…

If someone high up at google or facebook threatened to sift through the data they have on me, I would be worried. If they said they would hire external investigators, I would not be more worried than if any random person was going to do so.

Did I miss something, because I'm pretty sure this story is the latter scenario.

They're both bad actions, but only one is an abuse of trust and/or resources.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#307

Post by onewaystreet »

fown9 wrote: post #150
caractacus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto.

I took 2 uber rides this morning; I just uninstalled Uber and installed Lyft. They have the same amount of cars down in here in San Jose.

Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way and they continue to benefit from Uber doing the hard work of fighting the taxi industry and regulators. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you will need to walk.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#308

Post by onewaystreet »

hero454545 wrote: post #305

This story is plummeting suspiciously fast from the HN front page...

It was only on the front page because the mods put it there. Buzzfeed is a penalized site and this story is getting flagged. Normally it would be on page 10 by now. The mods can't hold it up forever, though, so now it's falling.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#309

Post by lettercarrier »

We used to laugh when our CEO/Head went to extremes to put customers first with things like creating a "Customer Bill or Rights." We thought it was overreaction after some glitch or dumb one-off call center rep violating PC correctness. But now I think Uber should get a transfusion.

All rides free New Years Eve and Halloween. No ride will ever cost more than $X (should not be hard to figure out - with an * too) To show good faith, ride once, the next is on us (for x weekend). Publicly terminate knuckelheads ("Jimmy the Greek") [1] Establish & Invite consumer, safety and the driver community to form an oversight group to ensure Uber holds itself to community standards.

My Luddite world has no idea what a Uber is, but they sure know how to ask and find out. New things to my Luds come from hearing human voices - asking neighbors/friends is still #1. Nothing out there now says "Uber has cleaned up its act" First impressions have to be disproven and last the longest.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#310

Post by onewaystreet »

justinv wrote: post #2

Personally, I've stopped using Uber because of the lack of the company/management's lack of ethics. Lyft comes off as a much friendly, consumer-focused company & frankly, my experiences have been better in a Lyft than an UberX. Also - I'm not one to usually browse Buzzfeed, but this was their story to break, so props to them for getting it out there.

Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way. They also continue to benefit from Uber doing the hard work of fighting the taxi industry and regulators. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you will have to walk.
Post reply on HN