Regardless of why the stories are coming out, can we stop directing away from them? We've got a big bad wolf on the hook, why let them off? There is no reason anyone should be supporting them at this point unless you're acknowledging you don't care about all of the stories. Other companies potentially being as bad (which I think people are really overplaying) is not reason to make excuses for them, as stated in other threads here.
I'm starting to get very skeptical to be honest. I tried to read that article looking for some hard evidence, one link went to BuzzFeed, where that linked to Forbes. I'm finding it hard to get more information.
In the wake of fake news, I'm asking for links, and not to other news sources. How do we know all this dirt isn't coming from Lyft? They're certainly going to benefit from this.
I read through the documentcloud link, Uber collects a lot of data, is honestly all I can see. I feel like I've missed something important, but I'm reading on my phone so I couldn't really search or read properly.
Could you help me understand?
(For the record, I don't use Uber or any ride-sharing platform and I don't have any stocks/shares. I have no incentive to watch them succeed or fail.)
So "Hell" was the name of their program for tracking Lyft drivers, and "Heaven" or "God View" was the name of their program for tracking Uber passengers. The allegations of Uber employees abusing the privacy of individual passengers using God View go back to at least 2014, so this actually isn't anything new, just more specifics about who they were spying on. See here for a screenshot of their God View emailed to a journalist without her permission: https://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-is-investigating...
Ah, sure. Is the complaint that they make that readily available to some set of people? It'd be silly to not expect them to have rider history in general
Well, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it might be enemy action, but a constant stream of mischief and abuse stories coming for the past few years... that's just how Uber rolls. The company should have been put down long ago, but now it's a good time too.
> but a constant stream of mischief and abuse stories coming for the past few years... that's just how Uber rolls
So if some piece of information is repeated enough times it is definitely true? I don't want to defend Uber here, I just think that your reasoning in this sentence is flawed.
Not trying to defend Uber here, but no individual legal allegation is proof of guilt. Mathematically, if every allegation holds zero proof of guilt, then in aggregate, even 173 allegations sum to zero proof of guilt.
I didn't mean repeating the same piece of information, I meant that each story was about some new mischief. Tax issues, employee vs contractor, operating illegally, price changes, uninsured drivers, spying on journalists, threatening journalists, sabotaging competition... that's just few old stories off the top of my head.
> In the wake of fake news, I'm asking for links, and not to other news sources.
What do you mean? In the end, news sources are by definition where we get information from. A blogger is also a news source. So is someone posting on facebook/twitter.
I assume there referencing the fake news craze issue hitting the internet. This is where people create websites just to post one fake news story that is completely false.
Annoying people now use it for anything published on a website or anything a newspaper prints they disagree with.
The problem is that sometimes a fake news article gets picked by a more reputable outlet and disseminated to other news sites from there. Unless an article cites their sources, it's sometimes difficult to be sure whether they're reporting something based on their own investigation into the matter, or whether they're just regurgitating something they saw in another article.
At this point it's not 'hard evidence', but it is testimony from the guy who claims to have been responsible for cleaning up after evidence was destroyed or cut off during raids. That's pretty damning, and worth a look...
The testimony of a guy under oath no less. And a testimony consistent with a pattern of illegal behavior that surely warrants a deep (criminal?) investigation with discovery.
"I'm starting to get very skeptical to be honest. I tried to read that article looking for some hard evidence, one link went to BuzzFeed, where that linked to Forbes. I'm finding it hard to get more information."
(Edit: the fact that you did know about documentcloud link and relegate it's mention to the third paragraph of your comment is not very convincing about your quest for truth)
I don't think stupidhn is advancing that logic as an argument for why Uber should be let off. I think they're saying that many people on HN are part of the (disruptive, gig-economy, resource-sharing) startup ecosystem and would be adversely affected by Uber failing, directly or indirectly; so they are either choosing to let them off or subconsciously predisposed to support Uber.
It's basically the same as the famous Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
I'm not saying I agree with the point, but my interpretation is different from yours. To your point, it is somewhat similar to saying, "Why haven't we found a cure for cancer? Because too many oncologists are dependent on the cancer treatment ecosystem." It's not exactly the same, for many reasons, but there is a similar line of possibly-specious reasoning.
I think the unspoken fear is that bringing down Uber means pulling a big card out from the house of cards. The money that has been pumped into Uber simply on hopes and dreams of a utopian vision of autonomous cars all controlled and operated by Uber and the schizophrenic valuations would have to face their day of reckoning if Uber is even just slightly acknowledged as being rotten. The emperor does in fact have the most wonderful clothes on indeed, because we all agree he does.
These stories just keep pumping out - "Uber uses internal tool X for nefarious purpose Y". I genuinely curious if the same sort of inquisition were focused on a different company, would we see similar stories? How much of this is cultural, and how much of it is a result of being examined microscopically by passionate investigators? Or is Uber really just that bad?
This is an important story because, in spite of the fact that our techno-industry has been at this for a long time now (decades), we still get companies that think its okay to violate fundamental human rights in the pursuit of profit - and that is why this story is so relevant to the HN crowd.
It doesn't matter that Uber did this. Microsoft, Sun, and countless other companies have gotten into trouble for this sort of behaviour in the past. This story is not about Uber.
This story is about how poorly the tech industry regards the legislative machinery that gives us all the right to have free access to computers, to do what we like with them, without restriction - and the liabilities of that freedom, when played in a market full of unscrupulous individuals with far, far too much power.
There are quite a lot of people who will tell you there is no such thing as rights. There's only power. This is not a new idea: it's always been around (think 'Magna Carta' and who knows how many times, back infinitely into the past).
The idea that there is no rights, only power, is as true as we agree it to be.
And that's why this debate is still ongoing. In times where it's a very live and relevant debate, power is ascendant and making the argument that rights are old hat. If it wasn't much of a debate because it was self-evident that there are no rights, we'd be in one of those Dark Ages periods of stultification, waiting for civilization to start up again. If it wasn't much of a debate because there is no power… actually, I'm not sure that's ever happened or ever will happen. It'd be an interesting thought experiment, to ask what that would even look like. Presumably that's a picture of bureacracy, but weaponized, meaning the power is on the law-makers and those who bend their ears.
As expected, that's the first thing claimed by power, whether it makes sense or not. To power, any bureacracy or law is always weaponized and illegitimate.
There's also the concept of natural and inalienable rights, at least theoretically in the US. In practice many of the 'Constitution lovers' among the politicians and authority figures will happily deny many of these natural rights whenever possible and useful to their own ends.
Legislation when it comes to PII data in the U.S is notoriously weak. Without that it's the only place to prosecute these companies is in the court of public opinion (better then nothing).
We have some laws for PII when it comes to health care data. Even those are comically bad... where hospitals, insurers, medical providers routine lose data (paper or electronic) and get away with small fines. On the other hand legitimate research doesn't have access to this data. It's even hard on an opt in basis.
On the other hand some industries do a lot of security/compliance theater. You have a bunch of accountants that figure out they can do compliance shake downs (SAS 70, SSAE 16, SOC, ...). A lot of times you're required to have these to be able to do business with other large businesses. Most of the time it's a checkbox more so then any kind of business processes.
My wife's old employer worked in a HIPAA required insutry, did all their SAS 70, SSAE 16, SOC, ... Then the next tax season after she left she got a letter in the mail saying that an employee got phished (real dumb phish too) for all their payroll data. My wife got 2 years of credit card monitoring and "please be vigilant this tax season" communication.
TL;DR: Laws are weak, enforcement is weak, fines are low.
> How much of this is cultural, and how much of it is a result of being examined microscopically by passionate investigators? Or is Uber really just that bad?
How does the first question affect the second? Assuming the stories are true, Uber really is just that bad. Whether other companies are too shouldn't be relevant in this context, or at least it shouldn't affect how bad all this is.
Motivated sources motivate other sources. You're seeing discontent among Uber employees play out as a line of newly-minted, motivated primary sources. This is why a news cycle can, on occasion, feel like the Eye of Sauron: it's not that people are suddenly paying attention, it's the constant reminder to indecisive sources that they can now air their grievances and find traction on them with that attention. Attention is exponential and each negative story sharpens it more than the last, compounding as the cycle deepens.
Journalists are acutely aware of this phenomenon. Just one particularly controversial story can pull dozens more out of the woodwork as sources say hey, you think that's bad, I've got something to talk about too. One runs a story that's a little bit wrong or controversial, and a bunch of sources will materialize out of the blue to correct, or add to, the record. Often, they remain sources once they realize it's child's play to get away with it and that sourcing can serve their ends, too.
The original CIR reporting here is mostly based on Spangenberg's October deposition, but they talked to five people to report on it. Five. That's really hard to pull off even for a well-connected reporter. Rough times for Uber if the bad news is flowing this freely, and I don't think we are done with this cycle by a long shot. Kalanick's exes are talking, for Christ's sake: if there's a Richter scale for news cycles, former lovers sourcing to help shit on your company is about a 9. That's a bad sign and a boatload of chum in the water. There will be followups on this stuff until Christmas. Mark my words.
As a counterexample, Theranos was a surprisingly tight ship once that WSJ missile landed; I expected far more of the same momentum you're now seeing with Uber once their cycle got going, and there was a little but not nearly as much. Smart money would be that Theranos takes better care of its people than Uber. Source behavior during negative PR cycles is a good signal on this, and why it's important to pay attention to care and feeding of people who have damaging things to say.
> How much of this is cultural, and how much of it is a result of being examined microscopically by passionate investigators?
An argument could be made that cultural is at least a significant factor. Take Susan J. Fowler's allegations, for example: if true (and I have no reason to believe they aren't), how many HR departments do you know that would not only tolerate but even assist in covering up repeated sexual harassment by an employee, with documented evidence no less?
No, other companies (of that size) are nothing like that. Yes, similar things obviously happen at other companies. The difference is that for Uber, it appears as if breaking laws and/or ethical norms was the intended modus operandi.
Contrary to popular opinion, companies can behave ethically, sometimes above and beyond what is required by law. I'd say the reasons are, in descending order of importance:
- Companies are people, who have a strong sense of right and wrong, and are usually quite eager to stay on the right side of the line dividing the two.
- "Company culture" which, just like a society's culture, actually sets the standards for what individuals consider right and wrong. This is what apparently broke down at Uber, because it's established quite early in an organisation's life. (I like to think that you can still see Steve Wozniak's playfulness in Apple's culture today, and that he may have stunted the worst of his co-founder's instincts from taking Apple down a similar path).
- Evolution: It's impossible for any company of significant size to keep secrets. If Google, Apple etc. were doing stuff like this on the same scale, they would no longer exist.
- The law, which is the codification of whatever society came up as in terms of morality
- "Corporate Governance", which is the codification of the symbiosis of law and company culture, plus mechanisms to enforce it.
But even if every company were as bad, I'd have to cite my Grandfather: "When did we start comparing ourselves to others?". Uber was up to a lot of stuff that shouldn't happen, and it shouldn't be excused. If you're asked to participate in such things, don't. If you fear you could be asked, or if you believe your company is forced to behave this way b/c competitors do, lobby for mechanisms to prevent it. Laws/Regulations/Industry guidelines on ethics fundamentally benefit everyone, because they prevent a Prisoner Dilemma's race to the bottom.
I'd imagine a company as big as Uber would have some sort of protection against employee's accessing customer data as well as auditing data access logs. I don't think it's an inquisition per se, but rather people are tired of saying "oh well... they're a startup I can let it slide this one time"
I'm with you there - this seems like a large oversight that should have been prevented. My original comment was more referring to all the bad press in general. I just wonder how many sketchy things modern tech companies get away with that are only discovered when the watchful eyes take notice.
You'd be surprised. I remember talking to a co-founder of a secure, encrypted chat startup that was getting acquired by bigger startup. Their response when I asked about their encryption was that they use HTTPS instead of HTTP...
SOX compliance is unfortunately bureaucratic in the sense as long as you can prove control is in place no one cares if you can read customer's data. A business owner can approve thr request in some ticketing system (change ticket) then the auditor would be okay because it is not the auditor's interest to judge whether some business decision is good or bad. You can keep your private keys in a Git repo encrypted as long as you can prove control and audit logs are available because the underlying security is not an audit concern. Another example is as long as you keep data and logs for seven years, auditors would be okay; they don't care if you are keeping a yearly archive for seven rars, monthly backup for seven years, you pick.
Data and security governance is often a miss item.
Sounds like it is. Uber's not exactly the first tech company to be in the spotlight, and yet they seem to be a uniquely anarchic organization.
For instance, Google's been in this kind of hot water before - namely regarding the stored wifi traffic captured by street view vehicles. That said, what Uber's accused of here is an even more massive breach of public trust IMO.
I may well be basing my opinion on outdated information, but I was referring to stuff like this :
"A Federal Communications Commission document disclosed Saturday showed for the first time that the software in Google’s Street View mapping cars was “intended” to collect Wi-Fi payload data, and that engineers had even transferred the data to an Oregon Storage facility. Google tried to keep that and other damning aspects of the Street View debacle from public review, the FCC said" [1]
Google has built the best spy machine of all times, something even the worst dictatorial regimes couldn't dream of. KGB would be jealous. And you can't opt out of the system even if you don't use them, it's like cancer.
Uber was digging its own grave before and now with the help of liberal journalists who got angry because of the Trumps fiasco they multiply the process.
I didn't have anything good to say about uber before, and I don't support their practices of breaking the laws, but clearly it's a witchunt against the company and CEO.
Is Uber really just that bad? I'd say it is. We've been seeing such stories regularly for many years now. Many of them have been discussed here on HN too. They all paint the same picture current stories do - that Uber operates in total disregard for the rule of law and human dignity.
As for why so many articles just now? My guess is that Susan Fowler's story crossed the outrage threshold in general public, and now news platforms are simply milking the cash cow.
How about under-secretary of his local home-owner's association, instead? Some place out of the way where his ability to affect the rest of us in society is instead limited.
That HOAA would soon have a secret black budget, used to fund various programs which automatically identify individuals with hedges not trimmed to association standards.
What do you think? To just ask the questions is a way to muddle the issue; perhaps offer your opinion and something to support it.
I've seen the same types of questions posted multiple times regarding Uber. Uber the victim, picked on; everybody does these things. I even saw someone say that the long list of executives that left Uber was normal. It's a cynical, and false, view of humanity and the business community.
I was asking questions because I am not well informed on the history of this sort of thing, and considering this is a forum of people who work at tech companies, I felt that some may be able to lend some insight.
I personally have worked at one hardware company that was extremely ethical, and none of this would fly at any point. Now I work in a very regulated business making medical devices. I'm just trying to expand my perspective past where it is.
That said, this all seems very bad to me and reflects poorly on a company that has grown by consistently breaking rules.
This is normal. Jouranlists dig deep into the trouble culture of Uber because the finding can sell and generally very interesting to research on. This has happened to every company with bad press.
Uber is a once in a lifetime multi-billion dollar company. It's not interesting if it makes even more money (or IPOs or whatnot); it's interesting if it fails. Also - the press goes through cycles of building things up and then finds way to tear it down. Pumping the view counts along the way.
Remember this 'tearing down' also counts as virtue signaling from Hell. It will make even more money if it is documented as a psychotic corporate shark on crack obliterating everything in or near its path. That's virtuous behavior to the stock market and the distinction is important.
Money can get Uber out of some or perhaps all of these problems. To the stock market, getting the single evilest company in the world into a position of absolute monopoly where they're above all laws and can do anything they want, is a good thing, if you are an investor in that company. It is always and only about the bottom line.
We assume this has to be within a context of law (if not morality, then at least law) but it's self-evidently not true and the valuation shows it. If investors thought law mattered, Uber would not be valued what it is.
In the startup culture of sidestepping rules this is the definition of hustle. You do whatever it takes to get info on your ex, politicians and especially Beyonce. /s
By the way I am pretty sure every startup is this way. At the very least this romantic idea of startups is getting shattered and Uber is taking the fall for it.
I've worked for startups basically my entire professional career, and none of the startups I've worked for were like that. I've interviewed at/talked about consulting for some that had a bit of a frat-house vibe, and turned those down.
- The single sexual harassment claim I can recall was a huge deal that caused soul-searching about how that person was hired. (Don't know that that was the best reaction, but it was indicative of the concern.)
- When things that pushed ethical lines were mooted, that was talked about a lot, and, at least to my sense of morals, we rarely crossed them.
Bottom line - being a startup doesn't mean you're an Uber. Being an Uber means you're an Uber.
I don't know why we keep calling these young companies start ups. At some point, we need to divorce that label form these organizations when they reach a certain size.
I believe when we can make a reasonable guess about a org's software being on a randomly selected person's personal hardware, they're probably no longer a start up.
Just because someone or a team of people carry that "hustle" ethos, doesn't make them a start up, it makes them hustlers.
Uber is perhaps just a symptom of a bigger problem. Wasn't HSBC accused of money laundering and then were just fined because they were too big to jail? Same with 2008 crisis. In capitalism there will always be such actors who will go scot free because they are too big and have tons of money.
The reality is that Uber disrupts taxable taxi revenue and municipalities are trying to strong arm them into getting a cut. States and counties, deeply entrenched in financial vehicles and income streams their analysts told them were viable for 30-year bonds, have absolutely no incentive to promote the type of innovation that allows a managed/unmanaged peer-to-peer economy.
There's been a lot of stories lately putting Uber in a bad light. It makes me wonder if it's not their competition who is behind it. Taxi industry lobby perhaps?
Why wouldn't they want Uber to be massively successful? This way they get both a big cash payout plus their equity stake in Uber rockets to the moon.
Accusing Google of the recent spate of bad PR is bizarre to me. There are plenty of players that have a much higher vested interest in dooming Uber than Google.
