10 ms·
I’m honestly not quite sure how to feel about this.
by Mo3 4y ago
I’m honestly not quite sure how to feel about this.
- pavel_lishin 4y agoWhat's the confusion?
- Mo3 4y agoMorally speaking, I’m not sure who is in the right here. I believe in the right to protect your data, and the kill switches seem somewhat acceptable.. on the other hand, Uber is scum and has systematically destroyed the taxi business.
- Terry_Roll 4y agoAnother way to look at this is, the Taxi industry failed to modernise and take advantage of available technology. They are not the only industry to have this done to them, takeaway/fastfood outlets are another blindingly obvious example. Becoming the new middle man, meeting the customers needs goes back hundreds of years.
- usr1106 4y agoModernize the industry by exploiting drivers. No thanks.
- eesmith 4y agoCould you explain what this "the right to protect your data" is supposed to mean? The US has always allowed a government to get a warrant to search personal records, including the ability to execute that warrant quickly, to prevent someone from destroying those records. Companies should and do get into legal trouble for destroying records which are required for legal, regulatory, or lawsuit discovery purposes. I don't think you rank corporate records higher than personal ones. So I don't understand the moral ambiguity here.
- Mo3 4y agoYes, but they didn’t destroy data. They merely shut off access to it.
- eesmith 4y agoObstruction of justice is also illegal. Your moral point is that you think it's okay to block anyone else from accessing your data, but it's not okay to destroy it? Because that's the only way I can make sense of your comment.
- Mo3 4y agoYup. Would you consider encryption obstruction of justice?
- eesmith 4y agoYou mean a kill switch which encrypts all of the data instead of deleting it or making it inaccessible? Yes. Why is that even a question?
- kbelder 4y agoBecause many people would answer differently.
- eesmith 4y agoI completely fail to understand. What is the moral reason for saying that a company can store, use, and profit off of data, with a kill switch that {delete, hides, obscures, encrypts} that data when the government comes with a warrant, or when the courts have authorized discovery for a lawsuit? Isn't that just rife for abuse? "Sorry, we don't have any records of dumping hexavalent chromium. The file deletion we did 10 second ago must have included them, if we had them." That would make for a very different Erin Brockovich movie. More to the point, why would encryption be okay, while deletion is not? Even more to the point, what judge (or jury!) would accept that difference?
- synicalx 4y agoUber appear to have been instructing their staff to act unlawfully to conceal information that could be used as evidence against them, when they were (and knew they were) operating illegally. And not just in one country, in at least six different ones. I mean it's kind of hard to feel sorry for Uber in this scenario surely?