There's an element of pissing in the wind to the majority of "actions" regarding online privacy. People are worried. No one knows what to do. The best example

There's an element of pissing in the wind to the majority of "actions" regarding online privacy. People are worried. No one knows what to do. The best example is the EU/UK "cookie law." It was impractical to begin with, mostly serving to allow legislatures the opportunity to be morally outraged and incensed. Then it devolved into "all sites must have a nagging popup." Realistically, the only way to achieve any of the law's goals was in the browser, not laws dictating what websites can do. This letter is mostly is mostly a criticism of Uber's bureaucracy. Privacy policies, training, etc. Again, not really the place to tackle any of these issues especially if the intent isn't there. Maybe, phones could do a better job of letting users control the data they leak. We don't really know how to deal with data in which the quanta is not sensitive, but aggregation makes it scary. An interesting point here is that the "statement" really sounded like tipsy macho bullshitting, not an actual threat or indication of intent. What the statement does indicate is a violation of the "don't be evil" maxim. Hey, Uber have assholes in high places. They have a lot of power. How many assholes are out there with dangerous access to data?