6 ms·

So, I completely agree with this letter, but I felt a sense of unease reading it. I realized why. Other companies are as bad or worse about privacy, where are a

So, I completely agree with this letter, but I felt a sense of unease reading it. I realized why. Other companies are as bad or worse about privacy, where are all those letters? I wish there were a lot more of these and wonder if the only reason this one exists is because the blowup with Uber was so visible and so it can be used for political posturing.

w4 12y ago
This was my reaction as well. Yes, Uber's behavior here is reprehensible. But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, and I have to wonder what, if any, authority the government could exert in these circumstances (disregarding the appropriateness of the use of said authority, or any potential legislative action). Assuming nothing about Uber's user terms and agreements aren't unlawful, it's almost certainly the case that, as alluded to by Franken's letter, users of Uber have agreed to provide Uber with this sort of access to their usage of the app. So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is.
- smt88 12y ago
  I see what you're saying, but there are two things that make this more egregious than other (assumed) offenses. First, Uber did this brazenly and, one could argue, openly. Their hubris needs to be curbed this way. Second, Uber explicitly wanted to go after a member of the press. The press is our shield against all the evil that is done against the public by governments and corporations. We need our journalists to feel absolutely safe in their chosen profession. We may disagree with or even hate some of them, but we have to show people considering such an important career that it won't put them at risk. As far as I know, Google and other companies are using/gathering our information equally legally. They might be doing something nefarious with it, but at least they claim to be responsible and honorable. With the exception of their press releases, Uber seems proud of their ruthlessness and lack of integrity.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    First, Uber did this brazenly and, one could argue, openly The reported quote was couched in the hypothetical; reported out of an 'off the record' private event; by a reporter that was the +1 of an invite. Those are major caveats. While they don't excuse anything, they also (frankly) answer several of the senators questions. I find it un-imaginable that Franken (or anyone) has never articulated views in the hypothetical, that may or may not have been in line with "corporate policy". Imagine if the 405 freeway was mic'd during rush hour. We'd have prisons full of criminals charged with thought crimes. All that being said, Uber needs to get its act together. Transportation is a heavily regulated industry for a variety of reasons. There are personal safety issues involved, interstate commerce, and all kinds of local issues. Uber needs to get itself in a position where politicians and the public can trust the company to operate in a manner deserving of the public trust. And in that direction, it seems to me at least, that they are showing a pattern of behaviour that is more at issue than any single event. It seems their general approach is open to question, on quite a few fronts. Wether or not rebellious, upstart brands are a problem, I don't think thats it. They seem to take on take on a air privledged 'bro's' who are untouchable and shady. And that is something that they don't want to be type-cast as, when ultimately their business relies on the public's trust.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > The reported quote was couched in the hypothetical; reported out of an 'off the record' private event; by a reporter that was the +1 of an invite. "Off the record" isn't some magic phrase you can use to stop a journalist from reporting what you say. It's a carefully constructed agreement between a source and a journalist. That agreement will cover what material is divulged and how it is sourced. It is wrong to suggest that this meeting was "off the record".
      - 001sky 12y ago
        This is dis-engenuous. One of the guests invited a tabloid reporter, did not appear to disclose the terms of the invitation to this person, and the result is predictable. The ethical nuances here are lost because you have a sketchy company and an ethically challenged publication. But in the same vein as the Mozilla incident, freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech...does not protect a citizen from another citizen. If a muck-raking journalist wants to hide behind ethics to keep citizens from muck-rakin them, that's simply not protected by law or frankly by any real ethical consideration, other than the sense of moral proportionality that reflects their own behaviour. It is a bizzarre point, but unfortunately its fundamentally correct. The only "new" ethical consideration in this flap has to do with using specific information (presumably confidential company information) to bolster an attack. From what i've read, nobody suggested that this type of attack was only possible using a certain set of information. Notwithstanding the distastefullness here, this is simply nothing that is not done in every major national election. So in that regard, the senator could equally send such a complaint to the DNCC. What is actually the legitimate issue here is something much narrower: whether or not a malicious person would have the potential to abuse information that is not publicly available to do this. That is very much a legit issue, but I'd be interested to see if the actual discussion would have been so bizaerre as to require this formulation. That would bring the company and its policies into the actual discussion in a way which simply articulating that low ethical standards swing both ways does not. For example, a malicious threat would be something along the lines of "I know where you were last weekend at xx:xx" where this information would be used to extort or blackmail someone (eg, an affair etc). This type of threat would specifically hinge on the abuse of private information. Whether or not this was somehow allowed under any user agreement or employee policy is beside the point--its blatantly an abuse of implicit trust. That is an entirely different type of situation that saying if "reporter X" is unethica, someone might very well do the equivalent of a classified-security clearance review of "reporter X" and articulate the findings in public. [1] Needless to say, most people that look at this cannot distinguish the two cases, or if they can they are happy to disregard the reality of how the world works already. The second issue is the idea of proportionality. In that when faced with some level or argument or counter argument, you dis-repscet the process of discourse and engage in ad-hominem. That is to say, in this case, retaliation with character assasination. Again, I think this cuts both ways here. Being tone deaf and lacking in porportionality is a problem for ethically challenged startups--not doubt--but its also a problem with tabloids (see: uk phone hacking) and social media lynch mobs. [1] If it meets the test of being legal and proportionate, its not really unethical by default.
- lmg643 12y ago
  agreed. my first thought in reading this: "Dear Mr. Kalanick - how dare you allow your staff to announce an idea to spy on the American people and use the information you learn against them? Didn't you know that privilege is exclusively for the US government? You know we will partner with you to abuse the vast information available on the habits of Americans through your service when the time is right - no need to get people riled up more than they already are. Best Regards, Uncle Sam."
  - peteretep 12y ago
    The biggest thing that will disenfranchise your political weight is dismissing the government as a homogenous mass, moving in lock-step, that "they're all as bad as each other". Uncle Sam is _people_. Good people, bad people, influential people, less influential people.
    - quanticle 12y ago
      That said, I do think it is valuable to point out that while Al Franken is admonishing Uber with one hand for tracking people without permission, he's giving the NSA pats on the back with the other for doing the very same thing [1]. If anything, the NSA tracking is worse. Uber can't send me to Gitmo, but the federal government sure can. [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/al-franken-nsa_n_3423413.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/al-franken-nsa_n_34...
- ams6110 12y ago
  My feeling also. If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. The Federal government is one of the worst offenders at being careless with personal data and of using it for political purposes when it suits them. I'm not defending Uber here, but this is just grandstanding by Frankin.
  - mturmon 12y ago
    OTOH, Frankenstein is the chair of the committee whose job is to oversee these matters. Perhaps the Senate Intelligence committee would be the analogous thing for government surveillance: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html
    - mturmon 12y ago
      Worst auto correct ever, btw. "Franken"
  - craigching 12y ago
    > My feeling also. If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. The Federal government is one of the worst offenders at being careless with personal data So all federal government is responsible for all other arms of federal government, Al Franken is a member of the federal government, therefore guilt by association? Just a question, but are you ok with your movements being tracked by Uber? Are you ok with any corporation spying on your movements and potentially using that information against you? So because the NSA spies on you, it's not ok for Al Franken to stand up to corporate privacy issues? Just saying ... Yes, I would like to see anyone stand up for privacy issues, corporate or federal. As has been pointed out in other threads on this post, Al Franken actually does stand against both. So let's agree that "the pot calling the kettle black" is a bad analogy because not all federal government necessarily agrees with other arms of the federal governments' actions. Yeah?
- craigching 12y ago
  > So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is. At least someone is speaking up. You criticize Al Franken for not going after everyone else as well, but why not criticize the other 99 senators who haven't done anything. I apologize in advance if I'm missing another senator that has done anything like this about privacy.
  - briandear 12y ago
    Rand Paul has done something far more important that weighing in on a private business policy.. He (along with a few others) have been extremely outspoken against the Patriot Act and warrantless NSA spying. Where's Franken's letter to Obama demanding "executive action" to suspend warrantless information gathering by the government. If Uner wants to be a shit, we don't have to use Uber. If I don't want my personal information harvested by my government, I have no recourse. I even live in France, yet my French bank records are required by FATCA to be disclosed to an American government entity simply because I happen to have an American passport. That's far more intrusive than anything a ride-sharing app can do to me. How about reports that the government has monitored journalists? Where's Franken's letter about that? This is nearly meaningless political grandstanding because Uber happens to be both well-known as well as currently in the headlines. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least-1-liberal-friend-left-sen-al-franken-20130611 http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least... And here's Rand Paul proposing a bill to end warrantless NSA wiretaps. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-paul-bill-would-curb-nsa-on-phone-records/blogEntry?id=19351069&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.fr%2F http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-paul-bill-would-curb-nsa...
    - jazzyk 12y ago
      100x this.
- rtpg 12y ago
  >But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, Complaining about gov't behaviour compared to private enterprise is like complaining about how kernel-level processes can do so much more than userland processes.
  - ivanca 12y ago
    No, it would be like complaining that a bug found in an userland program is publicly scrutinized but not when the same one is found on a kernel program.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      One man's bug is another man's misunderstood feature. Cf. Shellshock.
- spoomor 12y ago
  > including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement You voted for them, which is their way of saying "see, it's in the fine print, hahaha"
  - perlgeek 12y ago
    Not everybody who lives in a country has the right to vote.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
If you're a company with a lot of user data along these lines, this letter serves as notice that you'd better be able to answer these questions for your own company. Who knows when The Eye will glare your way?
- w4 12y ago
  > Who knows when The Eye will glare your way? It never will - Franken loses his chairmanship of the committee come January when the Republicans take power, which only serves to highlight that this "investigation" is merely him pandering to his constituency on his way out.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    The subcommittee, which is specifically tasked with looking at tech privacy issues, isn't going away.
    - revscat 12y ago
      No, but it will certainly be rendered useless by a majority party which believes government should have no meaningful say in any decisions made by businesses.
  - somebehemoth 12y ago
    Franken has been consistent in his support of privacy. Last year, he wrote to Tim Cook requesting clarification of Touch ID's details of implementation: http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2562 http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2562 "... that this "investigation" is merely him pandering to his constituency on his way out." An alternative, and more likely, explanation is that he is just being consistent in representing his constituency throughout his career.
- travisp 12y ago
  >Who knows when The Eye will glare your way? It seems like arbitrary application of political power in this way is more likely to increase political lobbying dollars than anything (make The Eye glare a different way or get your competitor).
bequanna 12y ago
In my opinion, this is simply a distraction. Where is the outrage over Target, Home Depot, et al carelessly storing and allowing credit card information for hundreds of millions of customers to be compromised? Where is the outrage over my landloard losing my sensitive information and having no liability if/when my identity is stolen? Use/abuse of data by companies is nothing compared to the damage that is done when data is stored improperly. How are we allowing companies to hold so much information that is so potentially damaging to us yet not able to hold them legally/financially accountable when our data is compromised because of their negligence? I'm not sure what it would look like, but regulation and penalties should be focused on sensitive data storage not use.
ubernostrum 12y ago
At the same time, we run into a problem with your unease, namely that we have to catalogue and rank by severity every privacy breach before addressing any individual one. Which is the same as saying we'll never address any.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  I'm not offering a solution, and I agree that ranking is bad. The biggest problem in all of this in my opinion is that the real criteria for this getting attention from Congress was "can I make political hay out of this." That's the worst possible metric short of active malice (although Congress does that too.)
snowwrestler 12y ago
These types of letters do get sent to other companies. Here's one from Franken to some obscure app company from February: http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2699 http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2699 Here's one to Google from Markey: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/googles-planned-changes-to-privacy-policy-rile-some-users-prompt-senators-letter/2013/10/14/90f65efc-34d1-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/googles-pl... Here's one to the FTC about Facebook from Warner: http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=0c84f1af-5025-46bc-b118-87123cd745e1 http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?... Here's one from Schumer to Zuckerberg: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324221 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324221 Here's one from Blumenthal and Franken to Social Intelligence (never heard of them before): http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-franken-call-on-social-intelligence-corp-to-clarify-privacy-practice http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blum... I found all these by Googling something like "senator letter [company name] privacy". Most don't get covered here because they are typically routine pandering by politicians that doesn't change anything. (As is this letter IMO.)
nativexer 12y ago
Letters like this appear all the time but only when the issue is sensationalized. It's inconsistent and doesn't actually solve any root problems between technology and society.
freshflowers 12y ago
Because Uber isn't part of the SV crowd that works with the US government in it's push against privacy, unlike for instance Google and Facebook, who regularly work together with the US government to pressure entire nations into removing their privacy related civil rights protection. Uber is not (yet) on the inside, and its brazen, undiplomatic and downright stupid behavior is an embarrassment and a liability for those who work to destroy privacy quietly. A backlash against Uber might escalate into a broader backlash, and that makes a lot of people very nervous.
wpietri 12y ago
An effective free press is part of the foundation of democracy. From my perspective, this is as bad as Uber going after politicians, regulators, or activists. Other companies may be as bad, but I don't think their badness is as dangerous.
puredemo 12y ago
Uber management was successfully trolled by the media, so now the political class is interested. Had they kept their nose down and remained silent there would be little to no outcry.
Shivetya 12y ago
Uber has more public exposure, and perhaps as Apple learned before them as did Google, you need members of Congress. Sometimes they remind you of that subtlety, other times not so much; legislation.
rayiner 12y ago
> if the only reason this one exists is because the blowup with Uber was so visible If you're a U.S. senator, you're probably not all that plugged-in to what various companies are doing with privacy. Heck, I'm constantly learning new things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634687. > and so it can be used for political posturing. So? You're unlikely to be able to build-up the mindshare to tackle an industry-wide problem without meaningful high-profile examples. Uber happens to make a particularly good one: they have a "God Mode" where they can see everyone's physical location! Quite a bit more visceral than uploading your e-mail address to Facebook and following you around with 1x1 pixel images.

w4 12y ago

This was my reaction as well. Yes, Uber's behavior here is reprehensible. But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, and I have to wonder what, if any, authority the government could exert in these circumstances (disregarding the appropriateness of the use of said authority, or any potential legislative action). Assuming nothing about Uber's user terms and agreements aren't unlawful, it's almost certainly the case that, as alluded to by Franken's letter, users of Uber have agreed to provide Uber with this sort of access to their usage of the app. So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is.

smt88 12y ago
I see what you're saying, but there are two things that make this more egregious than other (assumed) offenses. First, Uber did this brazenly and, one could argue, openly. Their hubris needs to be curbed this way. Second, Uber explicitly wanted to go after a member of the press. The press is our shield against all the evil that is done against the public by governments and corporations. We need our journalists to feel absolutely safe in their chosen profession. We may disagree with or even hate some of them, but we have to show people considering such an important career that it won't put them at risk. As far as I know, Google and other companies are using/gathering our information equally legally. They might be doing something nefarious with it, but at least they claim to be responsible and honorable. With the exception of their press releases, Uber seems proud of their ruthlessness and lack of integrity.
- 001sky 12y ago
  First, Uber did this brazenly and, one could argue, openly The reported quote was couched in the hypothetical; reported out of an 'off the record' private event; by a reporter that was the +1 of an invite. Those are major caveats. While they don't excuse anything, they also (frankly) answer several of the senators questions. I find it un-imaginable that Franken (or anyone) has never articulated views in the hypothetical, that may or may not have been in line with "corporate policy". Imagine if the 405 freeway was mic'd during rush hour. We'd have prisons full of criminals charged with thought crimes. All that being said, Uber needs to get its act together. Transportation is a heavily regulated industry for a variety of reasons. There are personal safety issues involved, interstate commerce, and all kinds of local issues. Uber needs to get itself in a position where politicians and the public can trust the company to operate in a manner deserving of the public trust. And in that direction, it seems to me at least, that they are showing a pattern of behaviour that is more at issue than any single event. It seems their general approach is open to question, on quite a few fronts. Wether or not rebellious, upstart brands are a problem, I don't think thats it. They seem to take on take on a air privledged 'bro's' who are untouchable and shady. And that is something that they don't want to be type-cast as, when ultimately their business relies on the public's trust.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > The reported quote was couched in the hypothetical; reported out of an 'off the record' private event; by a reporter that was the +1 of an invite. "Off the record" isn't some magic phrase you can use to stop a journalist from reporting what you say. It's a carefully constructed agreement between a source and a journalist. That agreement will cover what material is divulged and how it is sourced. It is wrong to suggest that this meeting was "off the record".
    - 001sky 12y ago
      This is dis-engenuous. One of the guests invited a tabloid reporter, did not appear to disclose the terms of the invitation to this person, and the result is predictable. The ethical nuances here are lost because you have a sketchy company and an ethically challenged publication. But in the same vein as the Mozilla incident, freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech...does not protect a citizen from another citizen. If a muck-raking journalist wants to hide behind ethics to keep citizens from muck-rakin them, that's simply not protected by law or frankly by any real ethical consideration, other than the sense of moral proportionality that reflects their own behaviour. It is a bizzarre point, but unfortunately its fundamentally correct. The only "new" ethical consideration in this flap has to do with using specific information (presumably confidential company information) to bolster an attack. From what i've read, nobody suggested that this type of attack was only possible using a certain set of information. Notwithstanding the distastefullness here, this is simply nothing that is not done in every major national election. So in that regard, the senator could equally send such a complaint to the DNCC. What is actually the legitimate issue here is something much narrower: whether or not a malicious person would have the potential to abuse information that is not publicly available to do this. That is very much a legit issue, but I'd be interested to see if the actual discussion would have been so bizaerre as to require this formulation. That would bring the company and its policies into the actual discussion in a way which simply articulating that low ethical standards swing both ways does not. For example, a malicious threat would be something along the lines of "I know where you were last weekend at xx:xx" where this information would be used to extort or blackmail someone (eg, an affair etc). This type of threat would specifically hinge on the abuse of private information. Whether or not this was somehow allowed under any user agreement or employee policy is beside the point--its blatantly an abuse of implicit trust. That is an entirely different type of situation that saying if "reporter X" is unethica, someone might very well do the equivalent of a classified-security clearance review of "reporter X" and articulate the findings in public. [1] Needless to say, most people that look at this cannot distinguish the two cases, or if they can they are happy to disregard the reality of how the world works already. The second issue is the idea of proportionality. In that when faced with some level or argument or counter argument, you dis-repscet the process of discourse and engage in ad-hominem. That is to say, in this case, retaliation with character assasination. Again, I think this cuts both ways here. Being tone deaf and lacking in porportionality is a problem for ethically challenged startups--not doubt--but its also a problem with tabloids (see: uk phone hacking) and social media lynch mobs. [1] If it meets the test of being legal and proportionate, its not really unethical by default.
lmg643 12y ago
agreed. my first thought in reading this: "Dear Mr. Kalanick - how dare you allow your staff to announce an idea to spy on the American people and use the information you learn against them? Didn't you know that privilege is exclusively for the US government? You know we will partner with you to abuse the vast information available on the habits of Americans through your service when the time is right - no need to get people riled up more than they already are. Best Regards, Uncle Sam."
- peteretep 12y ago
  The biggest thing that will disenfranchise your political weight is dismissing the government as a homogenous mass, moving in lock-step, that "they're all as bad as each other". Uncle Sam is _people_. Good people, bad people, influential people, less influential people.
  - quanticle 12y ago
    That said, I do think it is valuable to point out that while Al Franken is admonishing Uber with one hand for tracking people without permission, he's giving the NSA pats on the back with the other for doing the very same thing [1]. If anything, the NSA tracking is worse. Uber can't send me to Gitmo, but the federal government sure can. [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/al-franken-nsa_n_3423413.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/al-franken-nsa_n_34...
ams6110 12y ago
My feeling also. If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. The Federal government is one of the worst offenders at being careless with personal data and of using it for political purposes when it suits them. I'm not defending Uber here, but this is just grandstanding by Frankin.
- mturmon 12y ago
  OTOH, Frankenstein is the chair of the committee whose job is to oversee these matters. Perhaps the Senate Intelligence committee would be the analogous thing for government surveillance: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html
  - mturmon 12y ago
    Worst auto correct ever, btw. "Franken"
- craigching 12y ago
  > My feeling also. If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. The Federal government is one of the worst offenders at being careless with personal data So all federal government is responsible for all other arms of federal government, Al Franken is a member of the federal government, therefore guilt by association? Just a question, but are you ok with your movements being tracked by Uber? Are you ok with any corporation spying on your movements and potentially using that information against you? So because the NSA spies on you, it's not ok for Al Franken to stand up to corporate privacy issues? Just saying ... Yes, I would like to see anyone stand up for privacy issues, corporate or federal. As has been pointed out in other threads on this post, Al Franken actually does stand against both. So let's agree that "the pot calling the kettle black" is a bad analogy because not all federal government necessarily agrees with other arms of the federal governments' actions. Yeah?
craigching 12y ago
> So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is. At least someone is speaking up. You criticize Al Franken for not going after everyone else as well, but why not criticize the other 99 senators who haven't done anything. I apologize in advance if I'm missing another senator that has done anything like this about privacy.
- briandear 12y ago
  Rand Paul has done something far more important that weighing in on a private business policy.. He (along with a few others) have been extremely outspoken against the Patriot Act and warrantless NSA spying. Where's Franken's letter to Obama demanding "executive action" to suspend warrantless information gathering by the government. If Uner wants to be a shit, we don't have to use Uber. If I don't want my personal information harvested by my government, I have no recourse. I even live in France, yet my French bank records are required by FATCA to be disclosed to an American government entity simply because I happen to have an American passport. That's far more intrusive than anything a ride-sharing app can do to me. How about reports that the government has monitored journalists? Where's Franken's letter about that? This is nearly meaningless political grandstanding because Uber happens to be both well-known as well as currently in the headlines. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least-1-liberal-friend-left-sen-al-franken-20130611 http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least... And here's Rand Paul proposing a bill to end warrantless NSA wiretaps. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-paul-bill-would-curb-nsa-on-phone-records/blogEntry?id=19351069&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.fr%2F http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-paul-bill-would-curb-nsa...
  - jazzyk 12y ago
    100x this.
rtpg 12y ago
>But it's also kid stuff compared to what other entities (including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement) are engaged in, Complaining about gov't behaviour compared to private enterprise is like complaining about how kernel-level processes can do so much more than userland processes.
- ivanca 12y ago
  No, it would be like complaining that a bug found in an userland program is publicly scrutinized but not when the same one is found on a kernel program.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    One man's bug is another man's misunderstood feature. Cf. Shellshock.
spoomor 12y ago
> including the Federal Government itself, whose behavior we never agreed to in a TOS agreement You voted for them, which is their way of saying "see, it's in the fine print, hahaha"
- perlgeek 12y ago
  Not everybody who lives in a country has the right to vote.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

If you're a company with a lot of user data along these lines, this letter serves as notice that you'd better be able to answer these questions for your own company. Who knows when The Eye will glare your way?

w4 12y ago
> Who knows when The Eye will glare your way? It never will - Franken loses his chairmanship of the committee come January when the Republicans take power, which only serves to highlight that this "investigation" is merely him pandering to his constituency on his way out.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  The subcommittee, which is specifically tasked with looking at tech privacy issues, isn't going away.
  - revscat 12y ago
    No, but it will certainly be rendered useless by a majority party which believes government should have no meaningful say in any decisions made by businesses.
- somebehemoth 12y ago
  Franken has been consistent in his support of privacy. Last year, he wrote to Tim Cook requesting clarification of Touch ID's details of implementation: http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2562 http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2562 "... that this "investigation" is merely him pandering to his constituency on his way out." An alternative, and more likely, explanation is that he is just being consistent in representing his constituency throughout his career.
travisp 12y ago
>Who knows when The Eye will glare your way? It seems like arbitrary application of political power in this way is more likely to increase political lobbying dollars than anything (make The Eye glare a different way or get your competitor).

bequanna 12y ago

In my opinion, this is simply a distraction. Where is the outrage over Target, Home Depot, et al carelessly storing and allowing credit card information for hundreds of millions of customers to be compromised? Where is the outrage over my landloard losing my sensitive information and having no liability if/when my identity is stolen? Use/abuse of data by companies is nothing compared to the damage that is done when data is stored improperly. How are we allowing companies to hold so much information that is so potentially damaging to us yet not able to hold them legally/financially accountable when our data is compromised because of their negligence? I'm not sure what it would look like, but regulation and penalties should be focused on sensitive data storage not use.

ubernostrum 12y ago

At the same time, we run into a problem with your unease, namely that we have to catalogue and rank by severity every privacy breach before addressing any individual one. Which is the same as saying we'll never address any.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
I'm not offering a solution, and I agree that ranking is bad. The biggest problem in all of this in my opinion is that the real criteria for this getting attention from Congress was "can I make political hay out of this." That's the worst possible metric short of active malice (although Congress does that too.)

snowwrestler 12y ago

These types of letters do get sent to other companies. Here's one from Franken to some obscure app company from February: http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2699 http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2699 Here's one to Google from Markey: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/googles-planned-changes-to-privacy-policy-rile-some-users-prompt-senators-letter/2013/10/14/90f65efc-34d1-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/googles-pl... Here's one to the FTC about Facebook from Warner: http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=0c84f1af-5025-46bc-b118-87123cd745e1 http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?... Here's one from Schumer to Zuckerberg: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324221 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324221 Here's one from Blumenthal and Franken to Social Intelligence (never heard of them before): http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-franken-call-on-social-intelligence-corp-to-clarify-privacy-practice http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blum... I found all these by Googling something like "senator letter [company name] privacy". Most don't get covered here because they are typically routine pandering by politicians that doesn't change anything. (As is this letter IMO.)

nativexer 12y ago

Letters like this appear all the time but only when the issue is sensationalized. It's inconsistent and doesn't actually solve any root problems between technology and society.

freshflowers 12y ago

Because Uber isn't part of the SV crowd that works with the US government in it's push against privacy, unlike for instance Google and Facebook, who regularly work together with the US government to pressure entire nations into removing their privacy related civil rights protection. Uber is not (yet) on the inside, and its brazen, undiplomatic and downright stupid behavior is an embarrassment and a liability for those who work to destroy privacy quietly. A backlash against Uber might escalate into a broader backlash, and that makes a lot of people very nervous.

wpietri 12y ago

An effective free press is part of the foundation of democracy. From my perspective, this is as bad as Uber going after politicians, regulators, or activists. Other companies may be as bad, but I don't think their badness is as dangerous.

puredemo 12y ago

Uber management was successfully trolled by the media, so now the political class is interested. Had they kept their nose down and remained silent there would be little to no outcry.

Shivetya 12y ago

Uber has more public exposure, and perhaps as Apple learned before them as did Google, you need members of Congress. Sometimes they remind you of that subtlety, other times not so much; legislation.

rayiner 12y ago

> if the only reason this one exists is because the blowup with Uber was so visible If you're a U.S. senator, you're probably not all that plugged-in to what various companies are doing with privacy. Heck, I'm constantly learning new things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634687. > and so it can be used for political posturing. So? You're unlikely to be able to build-up the mindshare to tackle an industry-wide problem without meaningful high-profile examples. Uber happens to make a particularly good one: they have a "God Mode" where they can see everyone's physical location! Quite a bit more visceral than uploading your e-mail address to Facebook and following you around with 1x1 pixel images.