6 ms·

I don't disagree that this data would be beneficial to the public, but I don't think government should have the right to tell a private organization that they n

I don't disagree that this data would be beneficial to the public, but I don't think government should have the right to tell a private organization that they need to hand out their data to whoever wants it. Over regulation kills business; maybe not companies like Uber, but smaller companies that are still trying to get off the ground. This is a slippery slope.

ThePhysicist 10y ago
I'm not saying that they should be obliged to hand out all their data, just some of it. Example: We obviously wouldn't want the public to have access to personally identifiable data like GPS movements captured by phones, as this kind of data is highly sensitive. But having access to aggregated, (properly) anonymized data would be sufficient for many things, e.g. to see where local traffic hot spots are and how people commute to work. Giving out this data does not compromise privacy (if done right) and has a very little risk of harming the company that generated it.
- DINKDINK 10y ago
  The problem though is that people are effectively made to work for free if the government can order any organization to publish their private information. The government is forcing socialism on the upside and capitalism on the downside. Almost all information/research would serve a "public good" if it was converted from private to public. If the government forced an investment firm to reveal which companies they thought were the most undervalued in a market, many people would benefit from that knowledge. The question is, what right and what incentive structure promotes the generation of that knowledge. Theft is certainly not a structure that generates it long term.
  - schwap 10y ago
    > The problem though is that people are effectively made to work for free How so? Sharing this information is a condition of operating in an area. If that is unprofitable, Uber won't operate there.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    The problem though is that people are effectively made to work for free if the government can order any organization to publish their private information. But they're not doing that work for "free". They're doing in exchange for the privilege of being able to run a large-scale business on one of the most highly-trafficked street grids on the planet. Which in turn certainly doesn't exactly come for "free" (and in fact costs many billions of dollars per year to run, involving thousands and thousands of people who certainly don't work for fee either), now does it. So Uber says they don't want to pay for that privilege? That they'd rather not have to comply with regulations (like every other business operator in any other damn category you can think of) because they're... special? That's fine, of course -- they just don't have to do business in NYC, then.
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  If they don't want to share sensitive data such as GPS tracks they oughtn't to store it. From the end user's perspective, the stored data is still available via subpoena, leaks etc
  - MiddleEndian 10y ago
    From a user's perspective, data showing me traveling to and from my home directly is not very anonymous.
    - dublinben 10y ago
      Maybe that should make you think twice about using a private third party which records that data for your transportation needs.
      - MiddleEndian 10y ago
        Perhaps, but currently such services do not make that data available to the general public and users have been operating with that knowledge. If that gets retroactively changed by a local government, I'd say that government is the most at fault.
bhups 10y ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, those who agree or not, your point is constructive. Why should a government be able to coerce a private organization into providing data? How do you define data? At least in the US, I can think of 2 amendments that would be violated by such action (is data speech? can you be forced to self incriminate?). There are so many things that the government can force an individual or a business to do in the name of public good, but we can agree that many of those things count as government overreach, why not this?
- ska 10y ago
  Why should a government be able to coerce a private organization into providing data? Perhaps when it is benefiting from public infrastructure in the activities that generate that data? Not sure where I come down on this one but it isn't a crazy argument.
  - brandonmenc 10y ago
    Are you a driver paying, for example, the gas tax? Then you are already funding that infrastructure.
    - ska 10y ago
      If only it were that simple. Are you aware of anywhere where usage taxes cover all of the infrastructure?
  - bhups 10y ago
    We already pay for the public infrastructure through taxation. If the degree of taxation isn't suitable given the degree of use, there could be a corporate tax rate (I wouldn't support that, but it isn't unheard of). This does not, however, give the government a blank check on an individual or a business's rights. We don't barter our rights for public benefits - we pay for them through taxation.
snrplfth 10y ago
Agreed. It seems that this is just because there's some precedence with the taxis, but that doesn't mean it should be expanded. If Uber wanted to sell or give away data, properly anonymized and in accordance with their terms of service, that seems fine to me. But it's potentially quite valuable to Uber even in this state, and it doesn't really make sense to require a business to give them this data, any more than it would be to require other data-driven companies to do so. If it's not for public safety or something of that nature, I don't see why the government should really care.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  If it's not for public safety or something of that nature, I don't see why the government should really care. Aside from public safety, there's a whole lot of reasons -- from measuring how efficient these services really are (in a rapidly changing transportation landscape) to ensuring truly open and fair competition among potential providers -- for which regulators (and the public generally) might have an interest in this data.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    Yes, I suppose I can see how they might want that - I don't think it means that Uber is really obligated to give them anything though.
kafkaesq 10y ago
I don't disagree that this data would be beneficial to the public, but I don't think government should have the right to tell a private organization that they need to hand out their data to whoever wants it. As a "private organization", Uber of course doesn't have to do anything. But if it wants to operate a business on NYC's streets on a (massive) scale -- well, that's a privilege, not a right. And if they want access to that privilege, they're gonna have to play by the rules as set forth by the city's voters and their elected representatives. Who have a vested in interest having reliable access to that data for well, a whole bunch of pretty obvious reasons. It's called "rule of law", a concept which Uber has demonstrated considerable difficult in understanding thus far. Once they do, we can perhaps have a conversation about whether certain regulations are really useful or necessary or not. But it needs to be based on the pragmatic merits (or lack thereof) of those regulations. Arguments on the basis of "they're a private organization; you have not right to tell them what to do" just don't hold a lot of water in these contexts. This is a slippery slope. No, it's just life in the big city. And it's about time Uber got used to it.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  By this logic what's stopping government to demand everyone's online history from Facebook or the phone companies? After all government own the airwaves.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    As said, it all comes down to the merits of the specific regulations (and implicitly, how they jibe with the constitution and existing legislation). But as to the principled, absolutist counterargument that was offered: "they're a private organization; you can't tell them what to do! you just can't!" -- well sorry, but that's not how things work.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    There's nothing stopping them from doing that. Governments are sovereign, businesses and citizens are not. NYC is owned by the government. If you want access you play by their rules
ramblenode 10y ago
It doesn't seem like data is currently treated like other property, at least in public policy discussions. I imagine this will eventually change as data becomes an even larger segment of the economy. I'm sure people would have stronger feelings about a tax on Uber rides or a seizure of Uber's physical property, but a government demand for data doesn't seem to be thought of as a tax or seizure. Of course, this data is valuable and a large part of that value derives from it being proprietary, so if the city gets its way, Uber will effectively be paying a special tax to operate in NYC, just in the form of data. I'm not making any statement of value about the policy, just noting that this is not simply an issue of regulatory compliance but is also a transfer of (potentially) valuable property from Uber to NYC.

I don't disagree that this data would be beneficial to the public, but I don't think government should have the right to tell a private organization that they need to hand out their data to whoever wants it. Over regulation kills business; maybe not companies like Uber, but smaller companies that are still trying to get off the ground. This is a slippery slope.

ThePhysicist 10y ago

I'm not saying that they should be obliged to hand out all their data, just some of it. Example: We obviously wouldn't want the public to have access to personally identifiable data like GPS movements captured by phones, as this kind of data is highly sensitive. But having access to aggregated, (properly) anonymized data would be sufficient for many things, e.g. to see where local traffic hot spots are and how people commute to work. Giving out this data does not compromise privacy (if done right) and has a very little risk of harming the company that generated it.

DINKDINK 10y ago
The problem though is that people are effectively made to work for free if the government can order any organization to publish their private information. The government is forcing socialism on the upside and capitalism on the downside. Almost all information/research would serve a "public good" if it was converted from private to public. If the government forced an investment firm to reveal which companies they thought were the most undervalued in a market, many people would benefit from that knowledge. The question is, what right and what incentive structure promotes the generation of that knowledge. Theft is certainly not a structure that generates it long term.
- schwap 10y ago
  > The problem though is that people are effectively made to work for free How so? Sharing this information is a condition of operating in an area. If that is unprofitable, Uber won't operate there.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The problem though is that people are effectively made to work for free if the government can order any organization to publish their private information. But they're not doing that work for "free". They're doing in exchange for the privilege of being able to run a large-scale business on one of the most highly-trafficked street grids on the planet. Which in turn certainly doesn't exactly come for "free" (and in fact costs many billions of dollars per year to run, involving thousands and thousands of people who certainly don't work for fee either), now does it. So Uber says they don't want to pay for that privilege? That they'd rather not have to comply with regulations (like every other business operator in any other damn category you can think of) because they're... special? That's fine, of course -- they just don't have to do business in NYC, then.
xkcd-sucks 10y ago
If they don't want to share sensitive data such as GPS tracks they oughtn't to store it. From the end user's perspective, the stored data is still available via subpoena, leaks etc
- MiddleEndian 10y ago
  From a user's perspective, data showing me traveling to and from my home directly is not very anonymous.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    Maybe that should make you think twice about using a private third party which records that data for your transportation needs.
    - MiddleEndian 10y ago
      Perhaps, but currently such services do not make that data available to the general public and users have been operating with that knowledge. If that gets retroactively changed by a local government, I'd say that government is the most at fault.

bhups 10y ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, those who agree or not, your point is constructive. Why should a government be able to coerce a private organization into providing data? How do you define data? At least in the US, I can think of 2 amendments that would be violated by such action (is data speech? can you be forced to self incriminate?). There are so many things that the government can force an individual or a business to do in the name of public good, but we can agree that many of those things count as government overreach, why not this?

ska 10y ago
Why should a government be able to coerce a private organization into providing data? Perhaps when it is benefiting from public infrastructure in the activities that generate that data? Not sure where I come down on this one but it isn't a crazy argument.
- brandonmenc 10y ago
  Are you a driver paying, for example, the gas tax? Then you are already funding that infrastructure.
  - ska 10y ago
    If only it were that simple. Are you aware of anywhere where usage taxes cover all of the infrastructure?
- bhups 10y ago
  We already pay for the public infrastructure through taxation. If the degree of taxation isn't suitable given the degree of use, there could be a corporate tax rate (I wouldn't support that, but it isn't unheard of). This does not, however, give the government a blank check on an individual or a business's rights. We don't barter our rights for public benefits - we pay for them through taxation.

snrplfth 10y ago

Agreed. It seems that this is just because there's some precedence with the taxis, but that doesn't mean it should be expanded. If Uber wanted to sell or give away data, properly anonymized and in accordance with their terms of service, that seems fine to me. But it's potentially quite valuable to Uber even in this state, and it doesn't really make sense to require a business to give them this data, any more than it would be to require other data-driven companies to do so. If it's not for public safety or something of that nature, I don't see why the government should really care.

kafkaesq 10y ago
If it's not for public safety or something of that nature, I don't see why the government should really care. Aside from public safety, there's a whole lot of reasons -- from measuring how efficient these services really are (in a rapidly changing transportation landscape) to ensuring truly open and fair competition among potential providers -- for which regulators (and the public generally) might have an interest in this data.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  Yes, I suppose I can see how they might want that - I don't think it means that Uber is really obligated to give them anything though.

kafkaesq 10y ago

I don't disagree that this data would be beneficial to the public, but I don't think government should have the right to tell a private organization that they need to hand out their data to whoever wants it. As a "private organization", Uber of course doesn't have to do anything. But if it wants to operate a business on NYC's streets on a (massive) scale -- well, that's a privilege, not a right. And if they want access to that privilege, they're gonna have to play by the rules as set forth by the city's voters and their elected representatives. Who have a vested in interest having reliable access to that data for well, a whole bunch of pretty obvious reasons. It's called "rule of law", a concept which Uber has demonstrated considerable difficult in understanding thus far. Once they do, we can perhaps have a conversation about whether certain regulations are really useful or necessary or not. But it needs to be based on the pragmatic merits (or lack thereof) of those regulations. Arguments on the basis of "they're a private organization; you have not right to tell them what to do" just don't hold a lot of water in these contexts. This is a slippery slope. No, it's just life in the big city. And it's about time Uber got used to it.

maverick_iceman 10y ago
By this logic what's stopping government to demand everyone's online history from Facebook or the phone companies? After all government own the airwaves.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  As said, it all comes down to the merits of the specific regulations (and implicitly, how they jibe with the constitution and existing legislation). But as to the principled, absolutist counterargument that was offered: "they're a private organization; you can't tell them what to do! you just can't!" -- well sorry, but that's not how things work.
- Trundle 10y ago
  There's nothing stopping them from doing that. Governments are sovereign, businesses and citizens are not. NYC is owned by the government. If you want access you play by their rules

ramblenode 10y ago

It doesn't seem like data is currently treated like other property, at least in public policy discussions. I imagine this will eventually change as data becomes an even larger segment of the economy. I'm sure people would have stronger feelings about a tax on Uber rides or a seizure of Uber's physical property, but a government demand for data doesn't seem to be thought of as a tax or seizure. Of course, this data is valuable and a large part of that value derives from it being proprietary, so if the city gets its way, Uber will effectively be paying a special tax to operate in NYC, just in the form of data. I'm not making any statement of value about the policy, just noting that this is not simply an issue of regulatory compliance but is also a transfer of (potentially) valuable property from Uber to NYC.