3 ms·

You aren't allowed to comment like this here, and you should definitely know this. You have to engage civilly and substantively with points you disagree with, n

You aren't allowed to comment like this here, and you should definitely know this. You have to engage civilly and substantively with points you disagree with, not make a lowbrow "Uber is shitty and so are you" comment.

jsjohnst 10y ago
Respectfully, I disagree. He's not saying anything like what you claimed he said.
- sillysaurus3 10y ago
  Yep, I agree with your disagreement. Oh well. Apologies to eridius. I just wish we could maybe turn down the heated discourse from the maximum setting, since people are quick to escalate. But my original comment certainly didn't help in that regard. So, now that I've chosen to be in the hot-seat regarding Uber, who's up for a debate? Why is this particular behavior unethical? If it's true they accessed Lyft's API, under what circumstances is it ok to do this as a competitor? I promise I have an open mind.
  - jsjohnst 10y ago
    Usage of the API is bound by the terms of service. I've not read Lyft's ToS in detail, but I'm sure what Uber is doing is in violation of said terms. That's certainly unethical, potentially illegal. (PS, thanks for the late level headedness!)
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      So to be clear, is it true to say that under no circumstances may a competitor access an API without it being unethical behavior? It seems like every business will have a ToS clause to cover that, so this is an interesting moral question. Assuming it's unethical, if you were asked at your company to build a script that accesses a competitor's API, what should you do? Isn't it difficult to claim in general that collecting data using a competitor's services is inherently unethical?
      - eridius 10y ago
        If you're using a competitor's API in a way the API was intended to be used, it's probably OK, even if your motivation is to gain intelligence. But when you're breaking the ToS or otherwise doing things it wasn't intended to do, that's a problem.
        sillysaurus3 10y ago
        Hmm, I see. Is it possible to think of a single example where you could use a competitor's API in a way they intend, but also at a scale large enough to be useful from an intelligence perspective? If there isn't one, it seems like the argument again reduces down to "It's never okay for a competitor to use an API," which could be problematic.
        jsjohnst 10y ago
        IANAL, but using Lyft's API to see pricing and availability (to model your pricing and/or where drivers are in abundance) seems at minimum in a grey area. Using it to de-anonymize drivers and try to poach them, feels like crossing the line to me.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - jsjohnst 10y ago
        Eridius answered the first part, so I'll tackle the second part. What you should do depends on many factors. First and foremost, is the access you are doing strictly forbidden? You'd be surprised how often it's not. Next you'd need to assess the intent of the access. Is it for a legitimate fair use reason (even if forbidden, aka it's a judgment call if you feel you could legitimately make a case it shouldn't be forbidden)? Ultimately the above two don't matter, it all comes down to a decision of "is keeping your job" more important than "doing what is ethical/legal/whatever"?
    - Maarten88 10y ago
      Maybe it is productive to compare this to Aaron Schwartz's violation of the terms of service, downloading information from a publishers api using a university account against the terms of service. That was enough reason for a 35 year prison charge, plus 1 million damages. Of course, he was an activist, doing it for ideological reasons, against corporate interests. Contrary to what one might expect, the class justice system in the US punishes that much harder than a big corporation doing the same for the non-ideological reason of making more profit. Most people here seem to think it's benign, just a company competing hard, but that seems hypocritical to me.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    As a competitor, this is merely unethical. But Uber supposedly has no competition relation with drivers. Adding that drivers may choose to work both for Uber and Lyft, this gives Uber leverage against a category of population they have been known to abuse. The danger here is the combination of undue knowledge and a de-facto dependency relation in the hands of a known offender.
    - jsjohnst 10y ago
      "Merely"? I'd agree completely with your post if it weren't for that word. Makes it sound like being unethical is perfectly acceptable.
      - pyrale 10y ago
        The use of merely is used to highlight that things are actually even worse. My personal opinion on the state of the tech industry is we have a large ethics deficit, but this is beyond the point here.

jsjohnst 10y ago

Respectfully, I disagree. He's not saying anything like what you claimed he said.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
Yep, I agree with your disagreement. Oh well. Apologies to eridius. I just wish we could maybe turn down the heated discourse from the maximum setting, since people are quick to escalate. But my original comment certainly didn't help in that regard. So, now that I've chosen to be in the hot-seat regarding Uber, who's up for a debate? Why is this particular behavior unethical? If it's true they accessed Lyft's API, under what circumstances is it ok to do this as a competitor? I promise I have an open mind.
- jsjohnst 10y ago
  Usage of the API is bound by the terms of service. I've not read Lyft's ToS in detail, but I'm sure what Uber is doing is in violation of said terms. That's certainly unethical, potentially illegal. (PS, thanks for the late level headedness!)
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    So to be clear, is it true to say that under no circumstances may a competitor access an API without it being unethical behavior? It seems like every business will have a ToS clause to cover that, so this is an interesting moral question. Assuming it's unethical, if you were asked at your company to build a script that accesses a competitor's API, what should you do? Isn't it difficult to claim in general that collecting data using a competitor's services is inherently unethical?
    - eridius 10y ago
      If you're using a competitor's API in a way the API was intended to be used, it's probably OK, even if your motivation is to gain intelligence. But when you're breaking the ToS or otherwise doing things it wasn't intended to do, that's a problem.
      - sillysaurus3 10y ago
        Hmm, I see. Is it possible to think of a single example where you could use a competitor's API in a way they intend, but also at a scale large enough to be useful from an intelligence perspective? If there isn't one, it seems like the argument again reduces down to "It's never okay for a competitor to use an API," which could be problematic.
        jsjohnst 10y ago
        IANAL, but using Lyft's API to see pricing and availability (to model your pricing and/or where drivers are in abundance) seems at minimum in a grey area. Using it to de-anonymize drivers and try to poach them, feels like crossing the line to me.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - jsjohnst 10y ago
      Eridius answered the first part, so I'll tackle the second part. What you should do depends on many factors. First and foremost, is the access you are doing strictly forbidden? You'd be surprised how often it's not. Next you'd need to assess the intent of the access. Is it for a legitimate fair use reason (even if forbidden, aka it's a judgment call if you feel you could legitimately make a case it shouldn't be forbidden)? Ultimately the above two don't matter, it all comes down to a decision of "is keeping your job" more important than "doing what is ethical/legal/whatever"?
  - Maarten88 10y ago
    Maybe it is productive to compare this to Aaron Schwartz's violation of the terms of service, downloading information from a publishers api using a university account against the terms of service. That was enough reason for a 35 year prison charge, plus 1 million damages. Of course, he was an activist, doing it for ideological reasons, against corporate interests. Contrary to what one might expect, the class justice system in the US punishes that much harder than a big corporation doing the same for the non-ideological reason of making more profit. Most people here seem to think it's benign, just a company competing hard, but that seems hypocritical to me.
- pyrale 10y ago
  As a competitor, this is merely unethical. But Uber supposedly has no competition relation with drivers. Adding that drivers may choose to work both for Uber and Lyft, this gives Uber leverage against a category of population they have been known to abuse. The danger here is the combination of undue knowledge and a de-facto dependency relation in the hands of a known offender.
  - jsjohnst 10y ago
    "Merely"? I'd agree completely with your post if it weren't for that word. Makes it sound like being unethical is perfectly acceptable.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      The use of merely is used to highlight that things are actually even worse. My personal opinion on the state of the tech industry is we have a large ethics deficit, but this is beyond the point here.