5 ms·

isn't it illegal to swindle the market with fake financial data like this, without source? or since it's not public yet that's OK?

by gcb0 12y ago

Moveit 12y ago
I was thinking the same. Data could have been planted and business insider was fooled?
gojomo 12y ago
Illegal for whom? Which market? (Uber isn't a public company.) And BI has now made this "public" info. Do you have evidence that it's 'fake'?
Philadelphia 12y ago
It's not particularly great in terms of journalism ethics, either, especially with the level of detail they're providing. They basically reprinted a leaked slide deck in it's entirety, without there being much of a compelling public interest in anything it contains.
- gojomo 12y ago
  If it's true, who's harmed? What's the ethical principle involved?
  - Philadelphia 12y ago
    That's a good question. I think it comes down to compromising credibility. Reporters have to be perceived as trustworthy to be effective, and for that they basically need to be viewed as having generally good character, or — probably more importantly — good intentions. Just taking any old information you come across and throwing it out because it brings in clicks undermines that. The answer to who's harmed, then, is reporters in general, because it's behavior that generates an aura of unsavoriness and makes people less likely to trust the whole industry. TLDR: If reporting seems like corporate espionage, people think reporters are just corporate spies.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      I'm not sure where you're coming from with this because there's a long history of journalism based on leaks and confidential sources. It's not a matter of throwing out "any old information," since vetting sources is also a part of journalism and a reporter's reputation is indeed affected by bad stories. The repercussions you speak of simply don't exist because things like this are part of the very definition of journalism, but if you have anything that speaks to the validity of the sources in this story I'm sure we'd all like to hear them.
      - Philadelphia 12y ago
        I agree, absolutely, that leaks and confidential sources are critical to journalism. It's necessary to take into account the context and the content, though. The less public value the leak has, and the more confidential the information is, the more damage it can cause, the more carefully it needs to be handled. If a leak is very confidential but has a lot of value, using it is ok; the Pentagon Papers, for example. If a leak is not particularly confidential, has some public value, using it is ok; the name of the new store that's coming to a neighborhood, for instance. The first two items I was able to find for other expressions of the line of thought are the "Clandestine methods: Principles" section at [1] and this article [2]. The Business Insider article doesn't present any reason for choosing to publish the Uber information. It doesn't even offer any interesting analysis of it. It just seems to be revealing it for the sake of revealing it. There are ways to use the data that might be justified — for instance, discussing the risks of the company's legal status being uncertain in some of it's largest markets; looking at the number of drivers it has and the net effects of that on the total number of cars on the streets; looking at general trends in growth without revealing details, if they're interesting. Simply presenting the information raw and without context isn't reporting, though; it's just sharing, and, in this case, it's sharing information that wasn't meant to be shared, so it seems sleazy. [1]http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/investigative-journalism/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/act... [2] http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/leaks.html http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/l...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
onewaystreet 12y ago
The data isn't fake, it's inline with data that has been previously leaked. As for where it came from, Uber is in the middle of raising another round from investors. A lot of people have access to these numbers. Any one of them could have leaked this deck. BI isn't obliged to reveal its source.
nness 12y ago
Uber isn't a publicly traded company, so certainly not illegal from the perspective of insider-trading. Plus the article makes it very clear that it is a leaked document, and that its authenticity should be suspect as a result. Even if it were intentionally faked, not sure how it would be illegal from Business Insider's perspective to report on it.
prostoalex 12y ago
Investors in the private market are presumably more sophisticated, which often boils down to ability to CC a CPA and a financial advisor on an investment proposal, and ask them to chime in.

isn't it illegal to swindle the market with fake financial data like this, without source? or since it's not public yet that's OK?

by gcb0 12y ago

isn't it illegal to swindle the market with fake financial data like this, without source? or since it's not public yet that's OK?

Moveit 12y ago

I was thinking the same. Data could have been planted and business insider was fooled?

gojomo 12y ago

Illegal for whom? Which market? (Uber isn't a public company.) And BI has now made this "public" info. Do you have evidence that it's 'fake'?

Philadelphia 12y ago

It's not particularly great in terms of journalism ethics, either, especially with the level of detail they're providing. They basically reprinted a leaked slide deck in it's entirety, without there being much of a compelling public interest in anything it contains.

gojomo 12y ago
If it's true, who's harmed? What's the ethical principle involved?
- Philadelphia 12y ago
  That's a good question. I think it comes down to compromising credibility. Reporters have to be perceived as trustworthy to be effective, and for that they basically need to be viewed as having generally good character, or — probably more importantly — good intentions. Just taking any old information you come across and throwing it out because it brings in clicks undermines that. The answer to who's harmed, then, is reporters in general, because it's behavior that generates an aura of unsavoriness and makes people less likely to trust the whole industry. TLDR: If reporting seems like corporate espionage, people think reporters are just corporate spies.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    I'm not sure where you're coming from with this because there's a long history of journalism based on leaks and confidential sources. It's not a matter of throwing out "any old information," since vetting sources is also a part of journalism and a reporter's reputation is indeed affected by bad stories. The repercussions you speak of simply don't exist because things like this are part of the very definition of journalism, but if you have anything that speaks to the validity of the sources in this story I'm sure we'd all like to hear them.
    - Philadelphia 12y ago
      I agree, absolutely, that leaks and confidential sources are critical to journalism. It's necessary to take into account the context and the content, though. The less public value the leak has, and the more confidential the information is, the more damage it can cause, the more carefully it needs to be handled. If a leak is very confidential but has a lot of value, using it is ok; the Pentagon Papers, for example. If a leak is not particularly confidential, has some public value, using it is ok; the name of the new store that's coming to a neighborhood, for instance. The first two items I was able to find for other expressions of the line of thought are the "Clandestine methods: Principles" section at [1] and this article [2]. The Business Insider article doesn't present any reason for choosing to publish the Uber information. It doesn't even offer any interesting analysis of it. It just seems to be revealing it for the sake of revealing it. There are ways to use the data that might be justified — for instance, discussing the risks of the company's legal status being uncertain in some of it's largest markets; looking at the number of drivers it has and the net effects of that on the total number of cars on the streets; looking at general trends in growth without revealing details, if they're interesting. Simply presenting the information raw and without context isn't reporting, though; it's just sharing, and, in this case, it's sharing information that wasn't meant to be shared, so it seems sleazy. [1]http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/investigative-journalism/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/act... [2] http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/leaks.html http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/l...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

onewaystreet 12y ago

The data isn't fake, it's inline with data that has been previously leaked. As for where it came from, Uber is in the middle of raising another round from investors. A lot of people have access to these numbers. Any one of them could have leaked this deck. BI isn't obliged to reveal its source.

nness 12y ago

Uber isn't a publicly traded company, so certainly not illegal from the perspective of insider-trading. Plus the article makes it very clear that it is a leaked document, and that its authenticity should be suspect as a result. Even if it were intentionally faked, not sure how it would be illegal from Business Insider's perspective to report on it.

prostoalex 12y ago

Investors in the private market are presumably more sophisticated, which often boils down to ability to CC a CPA and a financial advisor on an investment proposal, and ask them to chime in.