4 ms·

> I guess I don't see any way a dockless bike/scooter rental scheme can be compatible with privacy. Their need to know where available bikes are, and to be abl

> I guess I don't see any way a dockless bike/scooter rental scheme can be compatible with privacy. Their need to know where available bikes are, and to be able to detect thefts makes it hard to imagine they could work without GPS tracking. I fail to understand why it's an issue if the government has this data but people are okay with Uber having it. Surely trusting the government is a more reasonable policy?

ekianjo 7y ago
> Surely trusting the government is a more reasonable policy? Looks like you have not really read about what governments do to their people when it's convenient for them to do so. Current examples: check China. Of course the US is not China, but that should be an ample warning enough that trusting government with data + power is a bad combination.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  "China" (as in the CCP) does not, in fact, have the data. They're leveraging a network of mostly-private companies to do the dirty work for them. So there's really no difference. If the US government became a dictatorship tomorrow, all the data collected by US private companies would end up in the government's hands. Neither private companies nor government entities can be trusted, and the only right answer is to demand that the data is not collected in the first place.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    > "China" (as in the CCP) does not, in fact, have the data. They're leveraging a network of mostly-private companies to do the dirty work for them The difference is that the CCP has every right to shut down businesses and they make the Law directly. No provisions can be made by external parties, there is no separation of power. So in practice all companies work in accordance with the CCP and will bend to their requests. In the US there are still companies which can and do refuse the federal government's requests to provide data without sufficient reason.
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    Your point seems to hinge on: IF the US became as bad as the CCP, it would force companies to hand over all their data anyways. But a government like the US isn't a singular entity. There are all sorts of good, bad, and neutral actors within it. If you hand the government your data now those bad actors can abuse it now, rather than some hypothetical future where the US becomes an extreme authoritarian dictatorship.
dpratt 7y ago
Uber doesn’t have a gigantic State apparatus with both a vested interest in and the ability to use violence to enforce it’s will on me. By your logic, it would be more reasonable to require that Google be barred from all data sent over email, but require that copies get sent to the NSA. Similarly, AT&T should be required to not collect any phone records, but also be mandated to provide a copy of every single call to the FBI.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > Uber doesn’t have a gigantic State apparatus with both a vested interest in and the ability to use violence to enforce it’s will on me. Uber falls under the jurisdiction of a gigantic State apparatus with both a vested interest in and the ability to use violence to enforce it’s will on you. Being a good corporate citizen, Uber would dutifully hand over your data to said government when asked. This is a distinction without a difference.
  - dpratt 7y ago
    Explain how it is legal for Uber to send a team of armed men to kick down my door at 3am and forcibly confine me to a cell.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      Before you worry about the legality of Uber's Maximum Customer Satisfaction Response Team, you'll have to provide evidence that something being against the law has ever stopped Uber from attempting it.
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      This weird paranoia about the government acting with no consequence seems to never extend to 2nd or 3rd layer thinking. If the government could send a team of armed me to kick down your door at 3am and forcibly confine you to a cell with no due process, they could do the same to the CEO of Uber to get your information in the first place. Having a layer of indirection in the form of a private company is little-to-no protection against a despotic regime. It only works if the government is still following the rule of law themselves.
Allower 7y ago
>Surely trusting the government is a more reasonable policy? Somebody clearly didn't learn anything about history..
- JohnFen 7y ago
  History tells us that large corporations are not actually any better (and in many ways are worse) than governments when it comes to this sort of stuff.

ekianjo 7y ago

> Surely trusting the government is a more reasonable policy? Looks like you have not really read about what governments do to their people when it's convenient for them to do so. Current examples: check China. Of course the US is not China, but that should be an ample warning enough that trusting government with data + power is a bad combination.

AlexandrB 7y ago
"China" (as in the CCP) does not, in fact, have the data. They're leveraging a network of mostly-private companies to do the dirty work for them. So there's really no difference. If the US government became a dictatorship tomorrow, all the data collected by US private companies would end up in the government's hands. Neither private companies nor government entities can be trusted, and the only right answer is to demand that the data is not collected in the first place.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > "China" (as in the CCP) does not, in fact, have the data. They're leveraging a network of mostly-private companies to do the dirty work for them The difference is that the CCP has every right to shut down businesses and they make the Law directly. No provisions can be made by external parties, there is no separation of power. So in practice all companies work in accordance with the CCP and will bend to their requests. In the US there are still companies which can and do refuse the federal government's requests to provide data without sufficient reason.
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  Your point seems to hinge on: IF the US became as bad as the CCP, it would force companies to hand over all their data anyways. But a government like the US isn't a singular entity. There are all sorts of good, bad, and neutral actors within it. If you hand the government your data now those bad actors can abuse it now, rather than some hypothetical future where the US becomes an extreme authoritarian dictatorship.

dpratt 7y ago

Uber doesn’t have a gigantic State apparatus with both a vested interest in and the ability to use violence to enforce it’s will on me. By your logic, it would be more reasonable to require that Google be barred from all data sent over email, but require that copies get sent to the NSA. Similarly, AT&T should be required to not collect any phone records, but also be mandated to provide a copy of every single call to the FBI.

AlexandrB 7y ago
> Uber doesn’t have a gigantic State apparatus with both a vested interest in and the ability to use violence to enforce it’s will on me. Uber falls under the jurisdiction of a gigantic State apparatus with both a vested interest in and the ability to use violence to enforce it’s will on you. Being a good corporate citizen, Uber would dutifully hand over your data to said government when asked. This is a distinction without a difference.
- dpratt 7y ago
  Explain how it is legal for Uber to send a team of armed men to kick down my door at 3am and forcibly confine me to a cell.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Before you worry about the legality of Uber's Maximum Customer Satisfaction Response Team, you'll have to provide evidence that something being against the law has ever stopped Uber from attempting it.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    This weird paranoia about the government acting with no consequence seems to never extend to 2nd or 3rd layer thinking. If the government could send a team of armed me to kick down your door at 3am and forcibly confine you to a cell with no due process, they could do the same to the CEO of Uber to get your information in the first place. Having a layer of indirection in the form of a private company is little-to-no protection against a despotic regime. It only works if the government is still following the rule of law themselves.

Allower 7y ago

>Surely trusting the government is a more reasonable policy? Somebody clearly didn't learn anything about history..

JohnFen 7y ago
History tells us that large corporations are not actually any better (and in many ways are worse) than governments when it comes to this sort of stuff.