5 ms·

Uber argues that it’s doing only what other technology companies regularly do. That may be true but it only underlines why we need oversight mechanisms that cov

Uber argues that it’s doing only what other technology companies regularly do. That may be true but it only underlines why we need oversight mechanisms that cover all of them. Such as? If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. Imagine a hypothetical oversight mechanism, then imagine the consequences to tech companies. Imagine the consequences to startups. Not Uber; I'm talking about tiny, early-stage startups. Airbnb and Dropbox have enriched my life. I'd hate for regulatory burden to prevent such startups from forming in the first place. This isn't a hypothetical concern. The finance industry is so regulated that you can't easily form a finance startup without having a lot of connections or a lot of money. Same for the healthcare sector, as far as I've heard.

rurounijones 12y ago
> If you're giving your data freely to companies You are assuming people understand this and the implications. The fact it is buried in a legalese ToS somewhere doesn't mean people know what information is sent and how it will be used.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  This is dodging the question. Again: What oversight mechanism can possibly protect users from themselves? They're sending this data, whether they understand it or not. People keep advocating that drug use should be an educational / health issue, not a legal issue. It's ironic that in this situation, people are calling for the opposite: For the government to step in and protect them, when it's unclear how the government can help without causing all kinds of unintended consequences. This should be an educational issue, not a legal issue. We should educate users about the ramifications of uploading this data. Remember, if we enforce regulation, users will still upload sensitive data, and the government will still be free to take advantage of it. Whereas if users are educated about what data they upload, then the data won't exist to begin with.
  - lemming 12y ago
    From: http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm#regulate http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm#regulate (copied here because I can't add much more than this). 1. Limit what kind of behavioral data websites can store. When I say behavioral data, I mean the kinds of things computers notice about you in passing—your search history, what you click on, what cell tower you're using. It's very important that we regulate this at the database, not at the point of collection. People will always find creative ways to collect the data, and we shouldn't limit people's ability to do neat things with our data on the fly. But there should be strict limits on what you can save. 2. Limit how long they can keep it. Maybe three months, six months, three years. I don't really care, as long as it's not fifty years, or forever. Make the time scale for deleting behavioral data similar to the half-life of a typical Internet business. 3. Limit what they can share with third parties. This limit should also apply in the event of bankruptcy, or acquisition. Make people's data non-transferable without their consent. 4. Enforce the right to download. If a website collects information about me, I should be allowed to see it. The EU already mandates this to some extent, but it's not evenly enforced. This rule is a little sneaky, because it will require backend changes on many sites. Personal data can pile up in all kinds of dark corners in your system if you're not concerned about protecting it. But it's a good rule, and easy to explain. You collect data about me? I get to see it. 5. Enforce the right to delete. I should be able to delete my account and leave no trace in your system, modulo some reasonable allowance for backups. 6. Give privacy policies teeth. Right now, privacy policies and terms of service can change at any time. They have no legal standing. For example, I would like to promise my users that I'll never run ads on my site and give that promise legal weight. That would be good marketing for me. Let's create a mechanism that allow this. 7. Let users opt-in if a site wants to make exceptions to these rules. If today's targeted advertising is so great, you should be able to persuade me to sign up for it. Persuade me! Convince me! Seduce me! You're supposed to be a master advertiser, for Christ's sake! 8. Make the protections apply to everyone, not just people in the same jurisdiction as the regulated site. It shouldn't matter what country someone is visiting your site from. Keep it a world-wide web.
  - radmuzom 12y ago
    Regulation does help protect users in many cases. For example, around 2009 the US government introduced an act which mandated that whenever a customer pays against credit card debt, the highest interest balance needs to be considered paid first if there are multiple balances at various interest rates. This reduced costs for consumers. Remember how competition is supposed to solve everything - it did not, all banks were doing the opposite as there was no regulation.
Spooky23 12y ago
Hate to say it, but too bad. These companies come around bragging about how they are going to disrupt <insert target>, and push off the mess they create on some hapless schlub in most cases. Well, fuck them. It is always a few bad apples that ruin things for the rest.
smacktoward 12y ago
> If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. "If you're taking patent medicines freely, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you." "If you're eating tainted meat freely, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you." "If you're driving on roads used by other drivers in poorly maintained cars freely, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you." Etc. etc. etc.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  You suggest three scenarios where death is a far more likely consequence of poor regulation than in the case of surrendering personal data. We'd rather have drugs that don't kill people more than we want the ability to start drug companies in our garages. The same probably can't be said for software companies and guaranteed total privacy. Hence the not understanding what a valid mechanism could be that satisfies society.
  - Borogravia 12y ago
    Depending on the country you live in and what your race/religion/sexual orientation is, a company selling your information to somebody else could also get you killed.
sdrothrock 12y ago
> If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. This argument doesn't make much sense to me. What if I said, > If you're giving your money freely to banks, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. I think the crux of the issue is that if I get a car ride with Uber, I have a reasonable expectation that I am paying for the service of a car ride. There is no reasonable expectation on my part that I'm giving them money for a car ride AND ALSO giving them the information about me/my ride to use freely, regardless of what the TOS may say. The expectation on the customer's part is that ride remain private, much like anything that goes on in the doctor's office. The reality, of course, does not match that expectation, which is why I think there should be some hypothetical oversight mechanism that manages the differences between the customer's expectation and Uber's reality. Just because Uber has data on me doesn't mean that I have given it to them to do whatever they want with it.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Yesterday, myself and a woman I'm not married to paid for transportation. We are both quite identifiable, being a very tall white guy and a black woman taller than most men (in Delhi we stand out). Do I have a reasonable expectation that my rickshaw driver will not tell his buddies about this? As far as I know, doctor/patient confidentiality is the exception - you have no expectation of privacy anywhere else.
  - sdrothrock 12y ago
    > Do I have a reasonable expectation that my rickshaw driver will not tell his buddies about this? No, but what I'm trying to get at is that you have a reasonable expectation that your rickshaw driver will not go out and try to find people to sell that information to or publish it in a newspaper or something.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - 12y ago
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
I upvoted you because a regulatory response is not really appropriate here. This is exactly the sort of thing the government is terrible at and their involvement will do more harm and good. But that doesn't mean what Uber is doing is appropriate. What we need is a market response. The NY Times is doing it wrong by asking for "oversight" when they should be using their bully pulpit to encourage Uber's customers to demand that Uber stop retaining this information. The press can be as much a check on the market as it is on the government and that's exactly what they need to be here. Uber isn't Google. You're paying them money. Companies that think they should get your money and your data can go screw.
- robbrown451 12y ago
  The market doesn't tend to work that way. Maybe some people will avoid Uber when they are actually having that one night stand....but you think significant numbers will boycott the service altogether on principle? I've never known that to work.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Hence the need for the bully pulpit. Nobody ever even hears about the one guy boycotting a service. But put a story telling customers how Uber is screwing them over in a major media outlet every week until they change their ways and you have yourself a ballgame.
    - tzmudzin 12y ago
      Is this really supposed to be more effective than an enforced legislation? It might work for one or two big names, but only until people get tired with the news of another bully. And you need it to work for all players, not the top one or two. If the above does not speak sufficiently: think of the efficiency loss caused by everyone having to watch who's the latest culprit in any market they enter... I'd never thought I'd ever advocate compliance & legislation -- but this is just a perfect case for it, also from an economical perspective.
woah 12y ago
Won't somebody think of the startups!
CaptainZapp 12y ago
If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. For example: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/ http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/ It does neither hinder you to give private data to companies, nor does it hinder companies to work with your data for the purpose it was submitted. It does hinder companies to abuse your data for purposes other than the operational use for which it was collected.

rurounijones 12y ago

> If you're giving your data freely to companies You are assuming people understand this and the implications. The fact it is buried in a legalese ToS somewhere doesn't mean people know what information is sent and how it will be used.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
This is dodging the question. Again: What oversight mechanism can possibly protect users from themselves? They're sending this data, whether they understand it or not. People keep advocating that drug use should be an educational / health issue, not a legal issue. It's ironic that in this situation, people are calling for the opposite: For the government to step in and protect them, when it's unclear how the government can help without causing all kinds of unintended consequences. This should be an educational issue, not a legal issue. We should educate users about the ramifications of uploading this data. Remember, if we enforce regulation, users will still upload sensitive data, and the government will still be free to take advantage of it. Whereas if users are educated about what data they upload, then the data won't exist to begin with.
- lemming 12y ago
  From: http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm#regulate http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm#regulate (copied here because I can't add much more than this). 1. Limit what kind of behavioral data websites can store. When I say behavioral data, I mean the kinds of things computers notice about you in passing—your search history, what you click on, what cell tower you're using. It's very important that we regulate this at the database, not at the point of collection. People will always find creative ways to collect the data, and we shouldn't limit people's ability to do neat things with our data on the fly. But there should be strict limits on what you can save. 2. Limit how long they can keep it. Maybe three months, six months, three years. I don't really care, as long as it's not fifty years, or forever. Make the time scale for deleting behavioral data similar to the half-life of a typical Internet business. 3. Limit what they can share with third parties. This limit should also apply in the event of bankruptcy, or acquisition. Make people's data non-transferable without their consent. 4. Enforce the right to download. If a website collects information about me, I should be allowed to see it. The EU already mandates this to some extent, but it's not evenly enforced. This rule is a little sneaky, because it will require backend changes on many sites. Personal data can pile up in all kinds of dark corners in your system if you're not concerned about protecting it. But it's a good rule, and easy to explain. You collect data about me? I get to see it. 5. Enforce the right to delete. I should be able to delete my account and leave no trace in your system, modulo some reasonable allowance for backups. 6. Give privacy policies teeth. Right now, privacy policies and terms of service can change at any time. They have no legal standing. For example, I would like to promise my users that I'll never run ads on my site and give that promise legal weight. That would be good marketing for me. Let's create a mechanism that allow this. 7. Let users opt-in if a site wants to make exceptions to these rules. If today's targeted advertising is so great, you should be able to persuade me to sign up for it. Persuade me! Convince me! Seduce me! You're supposed to be a master advertiser, for Christ's sake! 8. Make the protections apply to everyone, not just people in the same jurisdiction as the regulated site. It shouldn't matter what country someone is visiting your site from. Keep it a world-wide web.
- radmuzom 12y ago
  Regulation does help protect users in many cases. For example, around 2009 the US government introduced an act which mandated that whenever a customer pays against credit card debt, the highest interest balance needs to be considered paid first if there are multiple balances at various interest rates. This reduced costs for consumers. Remember how competition is supposed to solve everything - it did not, all banks were doing the opposite as there was no regulation.

Spooky23 12y ago

Hate to say it, but too bad. These companies come around bragging about how they are going to disrupt <insert target>, and push off the mess they create on some hapless schlub in most cases. Well, fuck them. It is always a few bad apples that ruin things for the rest.

smacktoward 12y ago

> If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. "If you're taking patent medicines freely, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you." "If you're eating tainted meat freely, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you." "If you're driving on roads used by other drivers in poorly maintained cars freely, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you." Etc. etc. etc.

brandonmenc 12y ago
You suggest three scenarios where death is a far more likely consequence of poor regulation than in the case of surrendering personal data. We'd rather have drugs that don't kill people more than we want the ability to start drug companies in our garages. The same probably can't be said for software companies and guaranteed total privacy. Hence the not understanding what a valid mechanism could be that satisfies society.
- Borogravia 12y ago
  Depending on the country you live in and what your race/religion/sexual orientation is, a company selling your information to somebody else could also get you killed.

sdrothrock 12y ago

> If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. This argument doesn't make much sense to me. What if I said, > If you're giving your money freely to banks, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. I think the crux of the issue is that if I get a car ride with Uber, I have a reasonable expectation that I am paying for the service of a car ride. There is no reasonable expectation on my part that I'm giving them money for a car ride AND ALSO giving them the information about me/my ride to use freely, regardless of what the TOS may say. The expectation on the customer's part is that ride remain private, much like anything that goes on in the doctor's office. The reality, of course, does not match that expectation, which is why I think there should be some hypothetical oversight mechanism that manages the differences between the customer's expectation and Uber's reality. Just because Uber has data on me doesn't mean that I have given it to them to do whatever they want with it.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Yesterday, myself and a woman I'm not married to paid for transportation. We are both quite identifiable, being a very tall white guy and a black woman taller than most men (in Delhi we stand out). Do I have a reasonable expectation that my rickshaw driver will not tell his buddies about this? As far as I know, doctor/patient confidentiality is the exception - you have no expectation of privacy anywhere else.
- sdrothrock 12y ago
  > Do I have a reasonable expectation that my rickshaw driver will not tell his buddies about this? No, but what I'm trying to get at is that you have a reasonable expectation that your rickshaw driver will not go out and try to find people to sell that information to or publish it in a newspaper or something.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

I upvoted you because a regulatory response is not really appropriate here. This is exactly the sort of thing the government is terrible at and their involvement will do more harm and good. But that doesn't mean what Uber is doing is appropriate. What we need is a market response. The NY Times is doing it wrong by asking for "oversight" when they should be using their bully pulpit to encourage Uber's customers to demand that Uber stop retaining this information. The press can be as much a check on the market as it is on the government and that's exactly what they need to be here. Uber isn't Google. You're paying them money. Companies that think they should get your money and your data can go screw.

robbrown451 12y ago
The market doesn't tend to work that way. Maybe some people will avoid Uber when they are actually having that one night stand....but you think significant numbers will boycott the service altogether on principle? I've never known that to work.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Hence the need for the bully pulpit. Nobody ever even hears about the one guy boycotting a service. But put a story telling customers how Uber is screwing them over in a major media outlet every week until they change their ways and you have yourself a ballgame.
  - tzmudzin 12y ago
    Is this really supposed to be more effective than an enforced legislation? It might work for one or two big names, but only until people get tired with the news of another bully. And you need it to work for all players, not the top one or two. If the above does not speak sufficiently: think of the efficiency loss caused by everyone having to watch who's the latest culprit in any market they enter... I'd never thought I'd ever advocate compliance & legislation -- but this is just a perfect case for it, also from an economical perspective.

woah 12y ago

Won't somebody think of the startups!

CaptainZapp 12y ago

If you're giving your data freely to companies, I don't understand what kind of oversight mechanism could or should protect you. For example: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/ http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/ It does neither hinder you to give private data to companies, nor does it hinder companies to work with your data for the purpose it was submitted. It does hinder companies to abuse your data for purposes other than the operational use for which it was collected.