> 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 reall

> 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.