5 ms·

Before everyone cries foul, let's not forget that what the government is proposing to collect is just a small subset of the data that private companies like Ube

Before everyone cries foul, let's not forget that what the government is proposing to collect is just a small subset of the data that private companies like Uber and Lyft already have on you. There it's accessible by untold number of people for all kinds of unregulated purposes.

gravypod 10y ago
Uber isn't backed by an army, secret courts, and they can't decide to throw me in jail. Edit: Fix my autocorrect word choice.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Yes but someone could pay or coerece a weak link to extract the data. The DEA has been known to engage in this behavior: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/f160107b.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/f160107b.pdf, (even for things like reporting customers who are carrying large amounts of cash but no drugs).
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > Yes but someone could pay or coerece a weak link to extract the data Or just pass a law to force them to do it and not spend any money.
  - wyager 10y ago
    Is your argument that "the government could do this immoral thing under the table, so we might as well let them do it over the table"? I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning. I would rather just say that the government can't legally do this immoral thing, and prosecute the government actors involved if we catch them doing it.
    - jdavis703 10y ago
      That is indeed my argument. In a democracy anything is possible if the people vote for it. However we need to make the actions of elected officials public. For example while I personally oppose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, I would've been less angry (and more sad) had it passed through congressional means with an open debate the public was aware of. I also do not think that violating (whether it be through amendments or other actions) the constitution's intent is inherently immoral, as the constitution has little, if any morality built into it.
      - meanduck 10y ago
        Its obvious you and many others here are statists. And its fine if thats how you want to live but I dont. So instead of endless debate on this/UBI/RTBF/etc, we need to work on a (better) framework to decouple land from politics i.e. Secession Protocol.
- username223 10y ago
  Uber is also run by unelected creeps (see "God-mode"), who will happily sell their data to the government and whomever else is willing to pay. And they can probably force you into binding arbitration before what is essentially one of their employees. Tradeoffs...
  - wyager 10y ago
    > Uber is also run by unelected creeps Of course no elected officials are morally questionably in any way.
- gumby 10y ago
  > Uber isn't backed by an army, secret courts, and they can't decide to through me in jail. You have it backwards (and BTW NYC doesn't have and army nor secret courts). Yes, the us gov sadly has secret courts and of course an army et al. But it's also subject to some constraints, such as the very one that gives rise to this blog post: government agencies typically have to announce their plans and have them open for discussion. Does the process always work? Of course not! But it's a lot more transparent than how corporations can be. People are outraged by secret spying, secret torture etc. And why do governments do that stuff in secret? Because they know it will cause outrage. Some governments (e.g. DDR & Norks to name a few), do it overtly because the very knowledge of the spying is part of its value. Whereas there are few tools to control the same actions by corporate entities. I do expect an erosion of these secret programs over the next 20 years. However they may be overshadowed by corporate databases. Our governments, being made of people, are hardly right all the time. But neither are our corporations (and they are indeed our corporations, regardless of capital structure because they are permitted to act in the public sphere) as they are also machines operated by people. A foolish knee-jerk reaction in favor of one over the other is intellectually stupid.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    >> Uber isn't backed by an army, secret courts, and they can't decide to through me in jail. > You have it backwards How do I enlist in Uber's army? How do I become a judge? How do I get a badge for Uber's police force? I'm quite apt with firearms knowladge and if they need an armorer they can give me a call. Or Uber doesn't have an army so I don't think I have it backwards.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > BTW NYC doesn't have and army nor secret courts Once data is in the hands of NYC, it can be freely shared with the federal government.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Once two Federal law enforcement agents decide the information is relevant, Uber will un-freely share with the Federal government.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Nor is the NYC mayor. The government cannot effectively regulate commerce, which is a core function of government, without access to relevant information. The contempt for the law that Uber in particular exercises makes this need even more obvious. If the supposed move to robot cars is real and not just bullshit to scam investors, it becomes exponentially more important, as there will be no witnesses to whatever takes place.
wyager 10y ago
I elect to give my data to Uber et al. I do not elect to give my data to the NYC government. > all kinds of unregulated purposes. You make that sound so nefarious. "Unregulated purposes" like better routing and drop off points, and maybe some advertising? What "regulated" purposes is the NYC government going to use this data for? Increasing the scope of their already massive surveillance mechanism?
meanduck 10y ago
Aww Govt is sad they are losing right to enslave citizens. Bureaucrats/Welfare-Addicts are worried about nearing possibility of doing actual work for money. Your argument of "at least we are not as bad as Uber" is just sick.
e40 10y ago
And the Patriot Act was only going to be used in cases of terrorism. Right. It's mainly used in the war on drugs now. As we thought it would be.

gravypod 10y ago

Uber isn't backed by an army, secret courts, and they can't decide to throw me in jail. Edit: Fix my autocorrect word choice.

jdavis703 10y ago
Yes but someone could pay or coerece a weak link to extract the data. The DEA has been known to engage in this behavior: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/f160107b.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/f160107b.pdf, (even for things like reporting customers who are carrying large amounts of cash but no drugs).
- gravypod 10y ago
  > Yes but someone could pay or coerece a weak link to extract the data Or just pass a law to force them to do it and not spend any money.
- wyager 10y ago
  Is your argument that "the government could do this immoral thing under the table, so we might as well let them do it over the table"? I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning. I would rather just say that the government can't legally do this immoral thing, and prosecute the government actors involved if we catch them doing it.
  - jdavis703 10y ago
    That is indeed my argument. In a democracy anything is possible if the people vote for it. However we need to make the actions of elected officials public. For example while I personally oppose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, I would've been less angry (and more sad) had it passed through congressional means with an open debate the public was aware of. I also do not think that violating (whether it be through amendments or other actions) the constitution's intent is inherently immoral, as the constitution has little, if any morality built into it.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      Its obvious you and many others here are statists. And its fine if thats how you want to live but I dont. So instead of endless debate on this/UBI/RTBF/etc, we need to work on a (better) framework to decouple land from politics i.e. Secession Protocol.
username223 10y ago
Uber is also run by unelected creeps (see "God-mode"), who will happily sell their data to the government and whomever else is willing to pay. And they can probably force you into binding arbitration before what is essentially one of their employees. Tradeoffs...
- wyager 10y ago
  > Uber is also run by unelected creeps Of course no elected officials are morally questionably in any way.
gumby 10y ago
> Uber isn't backed by an army, secret courts, and they can't decide to through me in jail. You have it backwards (and BTW NYC doesn't have and army nor secret courts). Yes, the us gov sadly has secret courts and of course an army et al. But it's also subject to some constraints, such as the very one that gives rise to this blog post: government agencies typically have to announce their plans and have them open for discussion. Does the process always work? Of course not! But it's a lot more transparent than how corporations can be. People are outraged by secret spying, secret torture etc. And why do governments do that stuff in secret? Because they know it will cause outrage. Some governments (e.g. DDR & Norks to name a few), do it overtly because the very knowledge of the spying is part of its value. Whereas there are few tools to control the same actions by corporate entities. I do expect an erosion of these secret programs over the next 20 years. However they may be overshadowed by corporate databases. Our governments, being made of people, are hardly right all the time. But neither are our corporations (and they are indeed our corporations, regardless of capital structure because they are permitted to act in the public sphere) as they are also machines operated by people. A foolish knee-jerk reaction in favor of one over the other is intellectually stupid.
- gravypod 10y ago
  >> Uber isn't backed by an army, secret courts, and they can't decide to through me in jail. > You have it backwards How do I enlist in Uber's army? How do I become a judge? How do I get a badge for Uber's police force? I'm quite apt with firearms knowladge and if they need an armorer they can give me a call. Or Uber doesn't have an army so I don't think I have it backwards.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > BTW NYC doesn't have and army nor secret courts Once data is in the hands of NYC, it can be freely shared with the federal government.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Once two Federal law enforcement agents decide the information is relevant, Uber will un-freely share with the Federal government.
Spooky23 10y ago
Nor is the NYC mayor. The government cannot effectively regulate commerce, which is a core function of government, without access to relevant information. The contempt for the law that Uber in particular exercises makes this need even more obvious. If the supposed move to robot cars is real and not just bullshit to scam investors, it becomes exponentially more important, as there will be no witnesses to whatever takes place.

wyager 10y ago

I elect to give my data to Uber et al. I do not elect to give my data to the NYC government. > all kinds of unregulated purposes. You make that sound so nefarious. "Unregulated purposes" like better routing and drop off points, and maybe some advertising? What "regulated" purposes is the NYC government going to use this data for? Increasing the scope of their already massive surveillance mechanism?

meanduck 10y ago

Aww Govt is sad they are losing right to enslave citizens. Bureaucrats/Welfare-Addicts are worried about nearing possibility of doing actual work for money. Your argument of "at least we are not as bad as Uber" is just sick.

e40 10y ago

And the Patriot Act was only going to be used in cases of terrorism. Right. It's mainly used in the war on drugs now. As we thought it would be.