It may have been an intentional leak, so "meant to be shared" even if the "confidential & proprietary" labels say otherwise. But also, why would Uber's desire-

It may have been an intentional leak, so "meant to be shared" even if the "confidential & proprietary" labels say otherwise. But also, why would Uber's desire-for-secrecy be given much weight? They're not a private individual that can be embarrassed. I haven't seen anyone intimate that this info is either false or damaging to them in any way. (And if, hypothetically, it were a leak that was true and changes outsiders' behavior enough to harm Uber, that might itself make the case for its release. Uber is a big force affecting a lot of employees and markets – a prominent 'public figure'. Its many counterparties amongst the public want and arguably deserve the best obtainable info about it.) The sense that "it seems sleazy" thus looks to me like a case of over-anthropomorphizing Uber itself, and thus granting it empathy which it is not due. Even if we think it a useful legal fiction to grant companies all the legal rights of persons, that doesn't mean they deserve all human courtesies, too. (Of course, if the leak were primarily about actual people, and especially if it was using dubious gossip to damage them, then a stricter standard would apply.)