3 ms·

> 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-do

> 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.

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.