4 ms·

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 even

by 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.
  - DanBC 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. People need to realise that journalists will report everything. They will report as much as they possibly can. Unless you have a written agreement with a specific journalist that covers what is or isn't allowed to be printed you must assume that they will print everything. The meeting was not private. You keep saying things like "ethically challenged". That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics. That's a gutter dwelling argument that is bullshit on both-sides. Because it supports the idea that private citizens should also be free to trash journalists. After all, if they have no ethics, they have no moral high ground to use as a defense against their own tactics. So you are arguing the point of the Uber-douche. Nice one.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        The meeting was not off the record. Don't invite journalists to a meeting and expect them to not report what you say at that meeting. If you need to go off the record you need an agreement with the journalist. You've twisted that to suggest that journalists are the same as an Uber executive digging dirt. The difference is that the journalist publishes under their name, via an editor and publisher, and is prepared to go to jail to protect their source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622941
        001sky 12y ago
        Where is your source for this? Buzzfeed guy was not an invited guest. His excuse was that, since he was not invited, he was not bound to the terms of the invitation. As someone else has written, if you think you need a (written) contract to enforce ethics, you don't understand the concept of 'ethics'. Contracts are useful because they create legal -- not simply ethical -- obligations. In any event, if you don't appreaciate any of this, we can agree to disagree.
wpietri 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. The man laid out a detailed plan to harm reporters while talking to reporters. That it's hypothetical doesn't matter. If a mob boss told journalists about how easy it would be to make journalists disappear, that it was hypothetical and off the record wouldn't matter. Senior executives of zillion-dollar companies do not accidentally talk to journalists. It could be that the guy is just a total idiot. But when otherwise smart people do something apparently stupid that just happens to serve their interests, it's reasonable to think that it was entirely intentional.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The man laid out a detailed plan to investigate and anonymously report facts about reporters while talking to reporters. ftfy If we want to make hyperbolic analogies, the closest one might be a mob boss suggesting hiring hit men to kill other hit men while talking to a hit man.

by 001sky 12y ago

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.
- DanBC 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. People need to realise that journalists will report everything. They will report as much as they possibly can. Unless you have a written agreement with a specific journalist that covers what is or isn't allowed to be printed you must assume that they will print everything. The meeting was not private. You keep saying things like "ethically challenged". That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    That's wrong -- this is standard journalistic ethics. That's a gutter dwelling argument that is bullshit on both-sides. Because it supports the idea that private citizens should also be free to trash journalists. After all, if they have no ethics, they have no moral high ground to use as a defense against their own tactics. So you are arguing the point of the Uber-douche. Nice one.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      The meeting was not off the record. Don't invite journalists to a meeting and expect them to not report what you say at that meeting. If you need to go off the record you need an agreement with the journalist. You've twisted that to suggest that journalists are the same as an Uber executive digging dirt. The difference is that the journalist publishes under their name, via an editor and publisher, and is prepared to go to jail to protect their source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622941
      - 001sky 12y ago
        Where is your source for this? Buzzfeed guy was not an invited guest. His excuse was that, since he was not invited, he was not bound to the terms of the invitation. As someone else has written, if you think you need a (written) contract to enforce ethics, you don't understand the concept of 'ethics'. Contracts are useful because they create legal -- not simply ethical -- obligations. In any event, if you don't appreaciate any of this, we can agree to disagree.

wpietri 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. The man laid out a detailed plan to harm reporters while talking to reporters. That it's hypothetical doesn't matter. If a mob boss told journalists about how easy it would be to make journalists disappear, that it was hypothetical and off the record wouldn't matter. Senior executives of zillion-dollar companies do not accidentally talk to journalists. It could be that the guy is just a total idiot. But when otherwise smart people do something apparently stupid that just happens to serve their interests, it's reasonable to think that it was entirely intentional.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
The man laid out a detailed plan to investigate and anonymously report facts about reporters while talking to reporters. ftfy If we want to make hyperbolic analogies, the closest one might be a mob boss suggesting hiring hit men to kill other hit men while talking to a hit man.