13 ms·

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the locat

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentially endanger sources and compromise whistleblowers? These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days. I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press. (Oh, and like Sarah Lacey, I'm a mom of young kids too. Reading that article induced such a shudder of horror, and will likely do the same for any parent who reads, or even hears about, that story. Uber has done major, major damage to their brand on a visceral level.)

nhangen 12y ago
In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I'm not going to defend the guy that made these comments, but I've heard enough from Sara and Paul to know that Pando has waged war on Uber, and should not be surprised that they've ruffled some feathers. Pando also shares a common investor with Lyft, so there's that...
- api 12y ago
  ... then Travis is playing right into their hands and feeding the troll. Personal flame wars on the net are one thing, but involving your company in that shit? The minute you take money and hire other people it's not your personal sandbox. This 4chan crap should at best come with a huge "my opinions are my own" disclaimer and should never involve your company.
- eli 12y ago
  Acting like an ass is not necessarily a zero-sum game. But that doesn't change the fact that publicly musing about going after someone's family for revenge is totally unacceptable.
- quadratical 12y ago
  In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I've desperately avoided commenting on anything related to his because I've known Travis for about a decade, but... you are sadly mistaken. Uber has a downright toxic culture. Sarah might have gone a little far here and there, but it is not because Travis is capitalistic, but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago. I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
  - theorique 12y ago
    I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery. That sounds like a reasonable reminder of the rules and protocols. Unless you are suggesting that the power differential can be overcome and managers should have sex with their subordinates.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago. Hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money does that to people. Looking forward to the documentary about Uber after its function is turned into a commodity.
  - gmar 12y ago
    > I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. What's wrong with that?
- hackuser 12y ago
  > Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals That sounds very speculative and about someone's state of mind. Could you give concrete examples of what you mean?
rhizome 12y ago
You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out. Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. Are we supposed to assume Uber does not already buy 1MM PR spends?
- Asparagirl 12y ago
  Yeah, if this is the shit they do and talk about in public, WTF do they do and talk about in private? EDIT: Oh my God, they also have the location data of the comings and goings of lots of politicians and industry regulators, don't they? Late night trips from locations some of those people might not want made public? If they'll so casually threaten a mother's kids, threaten journalists with $1M smear campaigns, what else have they already done?
  - pravda 12y ago
    First of all, I don't think anyone's kids were threatened. But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children? Other then it being illegal, of course. If a woman or man is doing something dishonorable, I don't see any problem with suggesting that their behaviour is not in the best interests of their children.
    - unohoo 12y ago
      If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children. >> But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children? Clearly you dont have children. If you dont see anything wrong with this notion, having a thoughtful discussion with you is a moot point. Do you work for uber ?
      - pravda 12y ago
        >If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children. Digging dirt is not threatening. Neither Sarah nor her children were threatened and it is dishonest and slimy to suggest otherwise. >Clearly you dont have children. I believe that truth and justice are the highest values. If threatening a woman's children is what brings her to conduct herself in a moral manner, then we can say it is good. Sometimes the ends justify the means. And the same applies to men, of course. But it's a moot point -- only the government can legally threaten someone's children.
spacefight 12y ago
I couldn't even install the app - it asks for way too much permissons.
tim333 12y ago
They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The "spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine" proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be associated with that stuff.
- schuman 12y ago
  App was a great step forward, but it's clear they have a poisoned culture. Emil isn't a bad apple, he's the same as the rest of the barrel.
  - worldheadway 12y ago
    yeah that is not....
  - frandroid 12y ago
    Anyway, the idiom is "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel."
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    Perhaps this is not a case of a barrel full of rotten apples, but a barrel full of durians.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture. And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.
  - tim333 12y ago
    yeah, quite likely
foobarqux 12y ago
> Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away. He'll have to hear from his friends at WSJ how great this year's event was, or how cool the devices are. They'll be special, he won't.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Surely you can see the difference between "loss of favorable treatment and perks" and "gross abuse of private data and anonymous slander"? What you've described - while highly problematic - is a pretty big distance away from "blackmail".
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    I'm not saying I support it, I'm just pointing out that companies manipulate journalists all the time and incentivize them not to "challenge the company's PR" as the GP put it. Uber's threats were extreme and beyond what is tolerated outside of politics. They could have manipulated her much easier by giving her unlimited free Uber "to better evaluate the service".
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      Oh I agree that there's a huge problem in using incentives to manipulate journalists and coverage - but I do think the comparison is a bit stretched. It's like comparing a hang glider to a jumbo jet. Sure, both are bad behavior and have some common motivations, but the moral gap is gigantic.
- schuman 12y ago
  That's very very different than ruining the journo"s life.
EC1 12y ago
How do you opt out of airports?
- wukkuan 12y ago
  I believe she is referring to opting out of the full body scanners[1] in American airports. One can do that by telling the TSA agent that they'd like to opt out of the scanner. They will instead do a manual pat down. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner
smrtinsert 12y ago
The threat against the children was vile and terrifying. The investors of Uber should be ashamed of themselves. Needless to say, a lot of Uber users are parents, and this news will definitely spread.
- DontBeADick 12y ago
  Where does the article say anything about children?
  - carrier_lost 12y ago
    "Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine." "your families" = "your children"
    - DontBeADick 12y ago
      > "your families" = "your children" I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.). It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.
      - anu_gupta 12y ago
        Family refers to all members of a family - adult members AND children. So, by threatening someone's family, one implicitly threatens any members of a family who are children (as well as the other members of a family).
        oldmanjay 12y ago
        plus it's much more fun to get all spun up about the most uncharitable interpretation possible. it works for Internet fights, relationship fights, street fights... an amazingly versatile technique for disrupting harmony.
DontBeADick 12y ago
Are you reading a different article? None of those threats were mentioned in the one I'm reading...
- metaphorm 12y ago
  Emil Michael suggested that Uber should hire opposition researchers to investigate the personal and family lives of journalists, including but not limited to, harassment of their spouses and children.
- Asparagirl 12y ago
  Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home. The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids. Here's her response, in PandoDaily: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-far-uber-will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/ http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
  - DontBeADick 12y ago
    > Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. > The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids. Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber. The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.
    - Asparagirl 12y ago
      Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families. What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.
throwaway09F911 12y ago
I'm writing this as a throwaway because this feels like mob and pitchforks. I'm a regular here and have no ties to Uber except using it. This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy. Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life. What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done." That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage. Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- metaphorm 12y ago
  a journalist's job often involves being "rude". some journalists specialize in "rude" reporting. scrutinizing powerful and wealthy people is one of the legitimate roles of a journalist, even when it comes across as "rude". powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.
  - tmarthal 12y ago
    This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues. Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies. Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do? The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.
none_for_me_thx 12y ago
There was no mention of blackmail. There was no mention of revealing the location of children. There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist. There was no "implication" about leaking customer data. As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging. If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.
- eli 12y ago
  According to the article an Uber executive did indeed access a journalist's data without her permission, something the spokesperson said was not possible: "In fact, the general manager of Uber NYC accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so." Or does "rifling" mean something else to you?
  - none_for_me_thx 12y ago
    It wasn't clear what "accessed the profile" meant. I guess it's talking about the travel logs from 2 paragraphs above?
    - aetherson 12y ago
      I suspect that the information pulled form the journalist's profile was pretty innocuous, or else they would have made more of a big deal about it. But at the same time, the point isn't that "the Uber GM found some hideously private information about the journalist," the point is that regardless of what their "information policy" is, the GM could access the account of the journalist, and was apparently comfortable doing so based on his own discretion and sense of propriety rather than explicit permission. If his sense of propriety was fine, and the information was innocuous, then that particular event wasn't a big deal. But it kind of makes lie of the idea that another high-level individual at Uber who may have, shall we say, different ideas about propiety could not abuse the information that Uber is entrusted with.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- prawn 12y ago
  When I think off-the-cuff "I'd like to do X" (and it's something unethical), I generally don't have a budget specified and number of staff to hire. And then I tend not to verbalise it to a large room of people. If their product stands on its own, they don't need to keep doing this.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
general_failure 12y ago
What a sensationalist reaction to a sensationalist article. > These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days. You won't consider them only because alternatives exist? What are you trying to say there?
- gutnor 12y ago
  That's the lowest level of vote with your wallet statement. Like "That's it facebook, you have abused my privacy one too many times, I will disconnect for a whole week-end."
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

nhangen 12y ago

In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I'm not going to defend the guy that made these comments, but I've heard enough from Sara and Paul to know that Pando has waged war on Uber, and should not be surprised that they've ruffled some feathers. Pando also shares a common investor with Lyft, so there's that...

api 12y ago
... then Travis is playing right into their hands and feeding the troll. Personal flame wars on the net are one thing, but involving your company in that shit? The minute you take money and hire other people it's not your personal sandbox. This 4chan crap should at best come with a huge "my opinions are my own" disclaimer and should never involve your company.
eli 12y ago
Acting like an ass is not necessarily a zero-sum game. But that doesn't change the fact that publicly musing about going after someone's family for revenge is totally unacceptable.
quadratical 12y ago
In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I've desperately avoided commenting on anything related to his because I've known Travis for about a decade, but... you are sadly mistaken. Uber has a downright toxic culture. Sarah might have gone a little far here and there, but it is not because Travis is capitalistic, but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago. I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
- theorique 12y ago
  I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery. That sounds like a reasonable reminder of the rules and protocols. Unless you are suggesting that the power differential can be overcome and managers should have sex with their subordinates.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago. Hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money does that to people. Looking forward to the documentary about Uber after its function is turned into a commodity.
- gmar 12y ago
  > I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. What's wrong with that?
hackuser 12y ago
> Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals That sounds very speculative and about someone's state of mind. Could you give concrete examples of what you mean?

rhizome 12y ago

You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out. Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. Are we supposed to assume Uber does not already buy 1MM PR spends?

Asparagirl 12y ago
Yeah, if this is the shit they do and talk about in public, WTF do they do and talk about in private? EDIT: Oh my God, they also have the location data of the comings and goings of lots of politicians and industry regulators, don't they? Late night trips from locations some of those people might not want made public? If they'll so casually threaten a mother's kids, threaten journalists with $1M smear campaigns, what else have they already done?
- pravda 12y ago
  First of all, I don't think anyone's kids were threatened. But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children? Other then it being illegal, of course. If a woman or man is doing something dishonorable, I don't see any problem with suggesting that their behaviour is not in the best interests of their children.
  - unohoo 12y ago
    If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children. >> But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children? Clearly you dont have children. If you dont see anything wrong with this notion, having a thoughtful discussion with you is a moot point. Do you work for uber ?
    - pravda 12y ago
      >If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children. Digging dirt is not threatening. Neither Sarah nor her children were threatened and it is dishonest and slimy to suggest otherwise. >Clearly you dont have children. I believe that truth and justice are the highest values. If threatening a woman's children is what brings her to conduct herself in a moral manner, then we can say it is good. Sometimes the ends justify the means. And the same applies to men, of course. But it's a moot point -- only the government can legally threaten someone's children.

spacefight 12y ago

I couldn't even install the app - it asks for way too much permissons.

tim333 12y ago

They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The "spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine" proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be associated with that stuff.

schuman 12y ago
App was a great step forward, but it's clear they have a poisoned culture. Emil isn't a bad apple, he's the same as the rest of the barrel.
- worldheadway 12y ago
  yeah that is not....
- frandroid 12y ago
  Anyway, the idiom is "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel."
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  Perhaps this is not a case of a barrel full of rotten apples, but a barrel full of durians.
potatolicious 12y ago
Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture. And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.
- tim333 12y ago
  yeah, quite likely

foobarqux 12y ago

> Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away. He'll have to hear from his friends at WSJ how great this year's event was, or how cool the devices are. They'll be special, he won't.

potatolicious 12y ago
Surely you can see the difference between "loss of favorable treatment and perks" and "gross abuse of private data and anonymous slander"? What you've described - while highly problematic - is a pretty big distance away from "blackmail".
- foobarqux 12y ago
  I'm not saying I support it, I'm just pointing out that companies manipulate journalists all the time and incentivize them not to "challenge the company's PR" as the GP put it. Uber's threats were extreme and beyond what is tolerated outside of politics. They could have manipulated her much easier by giving her unlimited free Uber "to better evaluate the service".
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    Oh I agree that there's a huge problem in using incentives to manipulate journalists and coverage - but I do think the comparison is a bit stretched. It's like comparing a hang glider to a jumbo jet. Sure, both are bad behavior and have some common motivations, but the moral gap is gigantic.
schuman 12y ago
That's very very different than ruining the journo"s life.

EC1 12y ago

How do you opt out of airports?

wukkuan 12y ago
I believe she is referring to opting out of the full body scanners[1] in American airports. One can do that by telling the TSA agent that they'd like to opt out of the scanner. They will instead do a manual pat down. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner

smrtinsert 12y ago

The threat against the children was vile and terrifying. The investors of Uber should be ashamed of themselves. Needless to say, a lot of Uber users are parents, and this news will definitely spread.

DontBeADick 12y ago
Where does the article say anything about children?
- carrier_lost 12y ago
  "Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine." "your families" = "your children"
  - DontBeADick 12y ago
    > "your families" = "your children" I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.). It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.
    - anu_gupta 12y ago
      Family refers to all members of a family - adult members AND children. So, by threatening someone's family, one implicitly threatens any members of a family who are children (as well as the other members of a family).
      - oldmanjay 12y ago
        plus it's much more fun to get all spun up about the most uncharitable interpretation possible. it works for Internet fights, relationship fights, street fights... an amazingly versatile technique for disrupting harmony.

DontBeADick 12y ago

Are you reading a different article? None of those threats were mentioned in the one I'm reading...

metaphorm 12y ago
Emil Michael suggested that Uber should hire opposition researchers to investigate the personal and family lives of journalists, including but not limited to, harassment of their spouses and children.
Asparagirl 12y ago
Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home. The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids. Here's her response, in PandoDaily: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-far-uber-will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/ http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
- DontBeADick 12y ago
  > Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. > The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids. Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber. The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.
  - Asparagirl 12y ago
    Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families. What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.

throwaway09F911 12y ago

I'm writing this as a throwaway because this feels like mob and pitchforks. I'm a regular here and have no ties to Uber except using it. This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy. Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life. What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done." That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage. Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
metaphorm 12y ago
a journalist's job often involves being "rude". some journalists specialize in "rude" reporting. scrutinizing powerful and wealthy people is one of the legitimate roles of a journalist, even when it comes across as "rude". powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.
- tmarthal 12y ago
  This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues. Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies. Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do? The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.

none_for_me_thx 12y ago

There was no mention of blackmail. There was no mention of revealing the location of children. There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist. There was no "implication" about leaking customer data. As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging. If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.

eli 12y ago
According to the article an Uber executive did indeed access a journalist's data without her permission, something the spokesperson said was not possible: "In fact, the general manager of Uber NYC accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so." Or does "rifling" mean something else to you?
- none_for_me_thx 12y ago
  It wasn't clear what "accessed the profile" meant. I guess it's talking about the travel logs from 2 paragraphs above?
  - aetherson 12y ago
    I suspect that the information pulled form the journalist's profile was pretty innocuous, or else they would have made more of a big deal about it. But at the same time, the point isn't that "the Uber GM found some hideously private information about the journalist," the point is that regardless of what their "information policy" is, the GM could access the account of the journalist, and was apparently comfortable doing so based on his own discretion and sense of propriety rather than explicit permission. If his sense of propriety was fine, and the information was innocuous, then that particular event wasn't a big deal. But it kind of makes lie of the idea that another high-level individual at Uber who may have, shall we say, different ideas about propiety could not abuse the information that Uber is entrusted with.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

prawn 12y ago
When I think off-the-cuff "I'd like to do X" (and it's something unethical), I generally don't have a budget specified and number of staff to hire. And then I tend not to verbalise it to a large room of people. If their product stands on its own, they don't need to keep doing this.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

general_failure 12y ago

What a sensationalist reaction to a sensationalist article. > These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days. You won't consider them only because alternatives exist? What are you trying to say there?

gutnor 12y ago
That's the lowest level of vote with your wallet statement. Like "That's it facebook, you have abused my privacy one too many times, I will disconnect for a whole week-end."

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]