3 ms·

I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm just telling the truth. I don't access customer information, and I don't know anyone who audits the logs so I can'

I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm just telling the truth. I don't access customer information, and I don't know anyone who audits the logs so I can't comment on those. I also don't know what other processes are in place, I'm sure there are others, but I've just never had to deal with it so I don't know. But I trust that Uber takes the security of their customers information very very seriously. The image of Uber being a brogrammers haven just isn't true anymore. There are thousands of engineers working that care very much about the company and our customers, including drivers and riders.

refulgentis 10y ago
6 of your former security officers say this isn't true, and that the company ignored warnings about the information being available. It's hard to come up with a way to rationalize the above comment, when the comment is in the discussion of an article showing you're, at best, naïve.
kelnos 10y ago
The truth, at least the part of it that you can see for yourself. You freely admit that you don't know if there even are actually audit logs, or if the measures in place are simply big warnings (that have no teeth behind them). Even if there are audit logs, they're useless if there's no system in place that flags suspicious use for a human to check up on... or lacking that, someone whose job it is to regularly read through the audit logs and verify that each access of personal info is legit. You seem like an ethical person, so you're unlikely to find out if there are consequences to looking at customer data without good reason, so you don't know what -- if anything -- is triggered if you click on something sensitive. I know you want to believe that what you're saying is true, but it sounds like you have no hard evidence to back that up to yourself, let alone evidence you can present to someone outside such as the HN readers reading this thread. You may trust that Uber takes the security of customer info seriously, but from the outside we have no frame of reference, except for reports of past wrong-doing. A statement to the effect of "it was bad in the past but it's better now" unfortunately isn't all that reassuring, and I hope you can see it from our side of the fence and understand why.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  > You may trust that Uber takes the security of customer info seriously, but from the outside we have no frame of reference, except for reports of past wrong-doing. A statement to the effect of "it was bad in the past but it's better now" unfortunately isn't all that reassuring, and I hope you can see it from our side of the fence and understand why. You are calling the OP out for not having hard evidence, yet you are happily accepting the words of other folks in news reports as being true. You can't really have it both ways...you're just picking the side you want to believe is true...
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    When, from either side, zero evidence is provided: The burden of evidence falls to the side which can cause the most potential damage to you/society, such that it can be mitigated/fixed. In this case believing a news article over Uber is in our best interest. As a result your the parent poster is justified in requesting Uber for evidence.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    > You are calling the OP out for not having hard evidence, yet you are happily accepting the words of other folks in news reports as being true. You can't really have it both ways...you're just picking the side you want to believe is true... You're implying every information available is to be credited with the same amount of trust. A published article from a journalist from a mainstram media outlet has track records, both on the journalist and the editor. The underlying source, is someone testifying in court, which engages more than aliased online posting, as well as cross-check performed by the journalist on other people. Second point : the person you quote mainly questions whether the experience he described gives us information on Uber's data protection policy. I had the same feeling. This has nothing to do with the guy's integrity.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    With out specific evidence nothing E8K says actually contradicts the article.
username223 10y ago
> The image of Uber being a brogrammers haven just isn't true anymore. Maybe -- I don't work there or know anyone who does. But you have to admit that a company that would even think of creating something like "God Mode," then actually do so, then show it off, is seriously twisted and out of touch. AFAIK most of the higher-ups who were around then are still there now. You shouldn't be surprised if "I swear I've changed, baby" is met with a bit of skepticism.
funnyfacts365 10y ago
So, do tell, how many of your fellow programmers do you know worked on building that employee tracking/logging system?
CaptainZapp 10y ago
But I trust that Uber takes the security of their customers information very very seriously. Looking at Uber history and a number of major gaffes that came to light i call bullshit. Trust is something that needs to be earned. I can't speak for others but I don't trust Uber at all.

refulgentis 10y ago

6 of your former security officers say this isn't true, and that the company ignored warnings about the information being available. It's hard to come up with a way to rationalize the above comment, when the comment is in the discussion of an article showing you're, at best, naïve.

kelnos 10y ago

The truth, at least the part of it that you can see for yourself. You freely admit that you don't know if there even are actually audit logs, or if the measures in place are simply big warnings (that have no teeth behind them). Even if there are audit logs, they're useless if there's no system in place that flags suspicious use for a human to check up on... or lacking that, someone whose job it is to regularly read through the audit logs and verify that each access of personal info is legit. You seem like an ethical person, so you're unlikely to find out if there are consequences to looking at customer data without good reason, so you don't know what -- if anything -- is triggered if you click on something sensitive. I know you want to believe that what you're saying is true, but it sounds like you have no hard evidence to back that up to yourself, let alone evidence you can present to someone outside such as the HN readers reading this thread. You may trust that Uber takes the security of customer info seriously, but from the outside we have no frame of reference, except for reports of past wrong-doing. A statement to the effect of "it was bad in the past but it's better now" unfortunately isn't all that reassuring, and I hope you can see it from our side of the fence and understand why.

res0nat0r 10y ago
> You may trust that Uber takes the security of customer info seriously, but from the outside we have no frame of reference, except for reports of past wrong-doing. A statement to the effect of "it was bad in the past but it's better now" unfortunately isn't all that reassuring, and I hope you can see it from our side of the fence and understand why. You are calling the OP out for not having hard evidence, yet you are happily accepting the words of other folks in news reports as being true. You can't really have it both ways...you're just picking the side you want to believe is true...
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  When, from either side, zero evidence is provided: The burden of evidence falls to the side which can cause the most potential damage to you/society, such that it can be mitigated/fixed. In this case believing a news article over Uber is in our best interest. As a result your the parent poster is justified in requesting Uber for evidence.
- pyrale 10y ago
  > You are calling the OP out for not having hard evidence, yet you are happily accepting the words of other folks in news reports as being true. You can't really have it both ways...you're just picking the side you want to believe is true... You're implying every information available is to be credited with the same amount of trust. A published article from a journalist from a mainstram media outlet has track records, both on the journalist and the editor. The underlying source, is someone testifying in court, which engages more than aliased online posting, as well as cross-check performed by the journalist on other people. Second point : the person you quote mainly questions whether the experience he described gives us information on Uber's data protection policy. I had the same feeling. This has nothing to do with the guy's integrity.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  With out specific evidence nothing E8K says actually contradicts the article.

username223 10y ago

> The image of Uber being a brogrammers haven just isn't true anymore. Maybe -- I don't work there or know anyone who does. But you have to admit that a company that would even think of creating something like "God Mode," then actually do so, then show it off, is seriously twisted and out of touch. AFAIK most of the higher-ups who were around then are still there now. You shouldn't be surprised if "I swear I've changed, baby" is met with a bit of skepticism.

funnyfacts365 10y ago

So, do tell, how many of your fellow programmers do you know worked on building that employee tracking/logging system?

CaptainZapp 10y ago

But I trust that Uber takes the security of their customers information very very seriously. Looking at Uber history and a number of major gaffes that came to light i call bullshit. Trust is something that needs to be earned. I can't speak for others but I don't trust Uber at all.