4 ms·

You missed the point: the telecom carriers haven't either, however they are regulated, which is not the case for Uber. So the point is moot for telecom carrier

by grive 10y ago

You missed the point: the telecom carriers haven't either, however they are regulated, which is not the case for Uber. So the point is moot for telecom carriers because the regulator already swept in. The point is still important to make concerning ongoing practices in unregulated markets, like big data in tech. If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces.

mindcrime 10y ago
You missed the point: The point, as I see it, is that your data is never really safe. I don't much care if Uber can be trusted or not, when the State can always step in and hoover up whatever data Uber has. If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces. As long as the State can't be trusted, the rest is moot.
- Fargren 10y ago
  Wait, that makes no sense. Your argument is that since there's one (huge) malicious actor we haven't stopped we should not care about any other malicious actors? "Privacy" is not binary. You can have privacy from Uber even while the government spies on you, and the situation when only one of them does is better than the one when both do.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    I'm more afraid of the USG than I am of Uber. And while the line you're talking about clearly exists, I consider it such a thin line as to be essentially moot. I guess the analogy I'd use would be this: worrying about Uber in the era of rampant warrant-less nation-state surveillance is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      In the sense that the government are more likely to use data on a massive scale I also find that a scarier prospect. But that's not what we're talking about. The threat from Uber is different. Uber is far more dangerous in the sense that someone might target me specifically. More so if I was the ex-girlfriend of someone who works there or is friends with someone who works there. Suggesting that the threat posed by Uber and by the government are just different points on the same scale is wrong. They're entirely different problems, and they'll need different solutions.
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      It's not and it doesn't matter. You won't get less state surveillance by only complaining about state surveillance and not about companies that do the same on a smaller scale. Respect for privacy has to become the normal situation. You can't say what does it matter if the other party does it way worse? No, they both need to step up. Even if it wouldn't make much practical difference if Uber just deleted their databases tomorrow while the NSA goes about their merry nefarious ways, it's also a battle of the public mind. The public doesn't care a lot, in a very large part because they just feel powerless about it, that they have no choice (and people really tend to come up with the stupidest arguments for the status quo if they feel powerless about it). Best way to make people care again (which is a small step towards getting our governments to stop giving our data to the NSA) is to draw a very clear line in the sand, NO you will respect our privacy, even if you're smaller than the big guys, it's not gonna happen, not on my watch. It's not like people in war-torn areas stopped caring about muggers and looters just because the US army is killing women and children way more effectively using drone-strikes and misinformed soldiers all hyped up on a mission to kill terrrists (oops). No it's wrong and it shouldn't happen. My opinion is, the data shouldn't be there in the first place. We can't protect it well enough. Especially not from future people who might legally come into possession of this data. Like in the US, privacy statements apparently mean nothing if a company or startup goes bankrupt and its assets are sold to third parties. They don't buy the obligations. This happened to Radioshack a few years ago, IIRC. Data is the new radioactive waste.

by grive 10y ago

mindcrime 10y ago

You missed the point: The point, as I see it, is that your data is never really safe. I don't much care if Uber can be trusted or not, when the State can always step in and hoover up whatever data Uber has. If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces. As long as the State can't be trusted, the rest is moot.

Fargren 10y ago
Wait, that makes no sense. Your argument is that since there's one (huge) malicious actor we haven't stopped we should not care about any other malicious actors? "Privacy" is not binary. You can have privacy from Uber even while the government spies on you, and the situation when only one of them does is better than the one when both do.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I'm more afraid of the USG than I am of Uber. And while the line you're talking about clearly exists, I consider it such a thin line as to be essentially moot. I guess the analogy I'd use would be this: worrying about Uber in the era of rampant warrant-less nation-state surveillance is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    In the sense that the government are more likely to use data on a massive scale I also find that a scarier prospect. But that's not what we're talking about. The threat from Uber is different. Uber is far more dangerous in the sense that someone might target me specifically. More so if I was the ex-girlfriend of someone who works there or is friends with someone who works there. Suggesting that the threat posed by Uber and by the government are just different points on the same scale is wrong. They're entirely different problems, and they'll need different solutions.
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    It's not and it doesn't matter. You won't get less state surveillance by only complaining about state surveillance and not about companies that do the same on a smaller scale. Respect for privacy has to become the normal situation. You can't say what does it matter if the other party does it way worse? No, they both need to step up. Even if it wouldn't make much practical difference if Uber just deleted their databases tomorrow while the NSA goes about their merry nefarious ways, it's also a battle of the public mind. The public doesn't care a lot, in a very large part because they just feel powerless about it, that they have no choice (and people really tend to come up with the stupidest arguments for the status quo if they feel powerless about it). Best way to make people care again (which is a small step towards getting our governments to stop giving our data to the NSA) is to draw a very clear line in the sand, NO you will respect our privacy, even if you're smaller than the big guys, it's not gonna happen, not on my watch. It's not like people in war-torn areas stopped caring about muggers and looters just because the US army is killing women and children way more effectively using drone-strikes and misinformed soldiers all hyped up on a mission to kill terrrists (oops). No it's wrong and it shouldn't happen. My opinion is, the data shouldn't be there in the first place. We can't protect it well enough. Especially not from future people who might legally come into possession of this data. Like in the US, privacy statements apparently mean nothing if a company or startup goes bankrupt and its assets are sold to third parties. They don't buy the obligations. This happened to Radioshack a few years ago, IIRC. Data is the new radioactive waste.