3 ms·

Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? You're entitled to think whatever you want, but you can't in good faith argue that thi

Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? You're entitled to think whatever you want, but you can't in good faith argue that this isn't their pattern of behavior. You're right that the circumstances are different, but the only constant is Uber underhandedly going after anyone who criticizes them. And an editorial in HuffPo from someone who pals around with the person engaging in the abusive behaviour is a pretty weak defense. Especially since they did a similar thing before: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/19/uber-investigates-top-executive-after-journalists-privacy-was-breached https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/19/uber-inve...

dllthomas 10y ago
> Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? They've dug up dirt on ex employees making public accusations like this? I haven't seen any claims to that effect. As I said, I think it's unlikely because I don't think the people involved are that evil, and I am confident that they are not that stupid. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be loud about it and I'll be working some place else. > And an editorial in HuffPo from someone who pals around with the person engaging in the abusive behaviour is a pretty weak defense. It's not decisive. I didn't present it as such. It's still the case that even the original source describes someone in a role that doesn't deal with the press ranting about how Uber could do something. Even if we take it on face value that's a far cry from establishing that they did it, as was your assertion. > Especially since they did a similar thing before: This is the first I've heard of that event. Obviously, that's an inappropriate use of PII, at least. It's entirely unclear from the article whether the list "sent to make a point" was meant as a threat of disclosure or to point at some specific discrepancy between the data and the reporting. The former would be similar. The latter, a different issue.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  So despite having spied on anyone who caught their fancy in the past- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/13/uber-employees-spying-ex-partners-politicians-beyonce https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/13/uber-empl... -your bar for skepticism/reproach is only cleared with proof that they've done the exact same thing before, telegraphing their intentions along the way? Ok.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    That article alleges poor controls around customer data, not coordinated action. It seems unrelated to what we were discussing, which was likelihood of Uber to - reusing my earlier phrasing - try to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.
    - alphonsegaston 10y ago
      Well, you should still probably quit because they already send thugs to intimidate women/former employees in the way you said was unacceptable: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-claims-company-investigator-illegally-ent?utm_term=.cpLlJ2jW5o#.han4xBQzM7 https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        There's some clear differences, and it's alleged not confirmed. That said, I'll look into it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

dllthomas 10y ago

> Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? They've dug up dirt on ex employees making public accusations like this? I haven't seen any claims to that effect. As I said, I think it's unlikely because I don't think the people involved are that evil, and I am confident that they are not that stupid. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be loud about it and I'll be working some place else. > And an editorial in HuffPo from someone who pals around with the person engaging in the abusive behaviour is a pretty weak defense. It's not decisive. I didn't present it as such. It's still the case that even the original source describes someone in a role that doesn't deal with the press ranting about how Uber could do something. Even if we take it on face value that's a far cry from establishing that they did it, as was your assertion. > Especially since they did a similar thing before: This is the first I've heard of that event. Obviously, that's an inappropriate use of PII, at least. It's entirely unclear from the article whether the list "sent to make a point" was meant as a threat of disclosure or to point at some specific discrepancy between the data and the reporting. The former would be similar. The latter, a different issue.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
So despite having spied on anyone who caught their fancy in the past- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/13/uber-employees-spying-ex-partners-politicians-beyonce https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/13/uber-empl... -your bar for skepticism/reproach is only cleared with proof that they've done the exact same thing before, telegraphing their intentions along the way? Ok.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  That article alleges poor controls around customer data, not coordinated action. It seems unrelated to what we were discussing, which was likelihood of Uber to - reusing my earlier phrasing - try to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    Well, you should still probably quit because they already send thugs to intimidate women/former employees in the way you said was unacceptable: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-claims-company-investigator-illegally-ent?utm_term=.cpLlJ2jW5o#.han4xBQzM7 https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      There's some clear differences, and it's alleged not confirmed. That said, I'll look into it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]