5 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. 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
- warcher 10y ago
  No offense, but they can and they do get that, routinely. You go to a judge, get a warrant, and you get pretty nearly anything you want. Similarly, there exist licensure and reporting requirements for taxi and hotel companies, for really good reasons (whose car is your wife/daughter/girlfriend getting in at two am? Is there a fire escape in that hotel? Are there bedbugs?), that Uber and AirBnB, among many others, are thus far shirking. For now-- it's only a matter of time.
brandonmenc 10y ago
> 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. I get that a business doesn't have the same rights as a person, but do we really want to be crafting a maze of one-off rules for every company just because each of them have something special that we don't want to pay them for? afaik, Uber makes money selling some of this data to municipalities.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  But do we really want to be crafting a maze of one-off rules for every company just because each of them have something special that we don't want to pay them for? I don't know, and won't pretend to know. Again, it all comes down to the merits. One might very well make the case that companies should be compensated for providing data in some cases. I was objecting solely to the "business rights" aspect some people were bringing up (and which comes up continuously in discussions about regulation and business ethics generally, here) -- which we seem to be roughly on the same page on.
bhups 10y ago
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. Forcing an organization to do something is a big deal because, unless you are specific about when and what kind of data you can force a private company to disclose, it can be abused. This is why such arguments are important. But if it wants to operate a business on NYC's streets on a (massive) scale -- well, that's a privilege, not a right. It actually is not a privilege, it is a right. Conducting business is a First Amendment right. In fact, this is a dangerous argument: if conducting business is a privilege, couldn't the government decide which businesses it likes and it doesn't like? The use of New York's streets is indeed a privilege, but that is already paid for by road taxes - anything more than that is just double dipping. It's called "rule of law", a concept which Uber has demonstrated considerable difficult in understanding thus far. Let's leave the attacks out of this - replace Uber with any other company and you have the same set of issues to discuss. Instead, let's just focus on the merits of the idea of government coercion of a private company to release data. If this data was truly beneficial to the public, couldn't the government buy it from the company through a voluntary transaction, paid for by taxpayers? The company can decide whether or not they wish to sell that information. The only reason a company would refuse to sell anonymized information is if they think the data is important to their competitive success.
- jkaptur 10y ago
  > Conducting business is a First Amendment right. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, but I'm not following your argument here. The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Furthermore, the framers of the Constitution wrote the Commerce Clause, specifically giving Congress the ability to regulate how businesses conduct themselves (albeit in a limited way). Do you have a court case in mind that provides more insight here?
  - bhups 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward comes to mind. It was a landmark case that effectively resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system. This whole discussion could also call into question the idea of corporate personhood, but that's another can of worms. :) I don't think anybody is disputing that regulation is allowed and useful, but we should also be questioning all regulation to ensure that the government isn't overreaching.

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
warcher 10y ago
No offense, but they can and they do get that, routinely. You go to a judge, get a warrant, and you get pretty nearly anything you want. Similarly, there exist licensure and reporting requirements for taxi and hotel companies, for really good reasons (whose car is your wife/daughter/girlfriend getting in at two am? Is there a fire escape in that hotel? Are there bedbugs?), that Uber and AirBnB, among many others, are thus far shirking. For now-- it's only a matter of time.

brandonmenc 10y ago

> 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. I get that a business doesn't have the same rights as a person, but do we really want to be crafting a maze of one-off rules for every company just because each of them have something special that we don't want to pay them for? afaik, Uber makes money selling some of this data to municipalities.

kafkaesq 10y ago
But do we really want to be crafting a maze of one-off rules for every company just because each of them have something special that we don't want to pay them for? I don't know, and won't pretend to know. Again, it all comes down to the merits. One might very well make the case that companies should be compensated for providing data in some cases. I was objecting solely to the "business rights" aspect some people were bringing up (and which comes up continuously in discussions about regulation and business ethics generally, here) -- which we seem to be roughly on the same page on.

bhups 10y ago

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. Forcing an organization to do something is a big deal because, unless you are specific about when and what kind of data you can force a private company to disclose, it can be abused. This is why such arguments are important. But if it wants to operate a business on NYC's streets on a (massive) scale -- well, that's a privilege, not a right. It actually is not a privilege, it is a right. Conducting business is a First Amendment right. In fact, this is a dangerous argument: if conducting business is a privilege, couldn't the government decide which businesses it likes and it doesn't like? The use of New York's streets is indeed a privilege, but that is already paid for by road taxes - anything more than that is just double dipping. It's called "rule of law", a concept which Uber has demonstrated considerable difficult in understanding thus far. Let's leave the attacks out of this - replace Uber with any other company and you have the same set of issues to discuss. Instead, let's just focus on the merits of the idea of government coercion of a private company to release data. If this data was truly beneficial to the public, couldn't the government buy it from the company through a voluntary transaction, paid for by taxpayers? The company can decide whether or not they wish to sell that information. The only reason a company would refuse to sell anonymized information is if they think the data is important to their competitive success.

jkaptur 10y ago
> Conducting business is a First Amendment right. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, but I'm not following your argument here. The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Furthermore, the framers of the Constitution wrote the Commerce Clause, specifically giving Congress the ability to regulate how businesses conduct themselves (albeit in a limited way). Do you have a court case in mind that provides more insight here?
- bhups 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward comes to mind. It was a landmark case that effectively resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system. This whole discussion could also call into question the idea of corporate personhood, but that's another can of worms. :) I don't think anybody is disputing that regulation is allowed and useful, but we should also be questioning all regulation to ensure that the government isn't overreaching.