At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until:
> For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement.
Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces. You can't run a successful company and get away with this stuff, especially as a start up when everyone is out to get you even moreso.
I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.
> I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.
The app stopped working for me. That got me to install Lyft. Then I wondered why I hadn't earlier.
Around the time Uber started tracking users _after_ a ride, their "search for destination" feature stopped working for me. After I tapped my destination from the list of results, the app would hang indefinitely with a terrible bouncing progress bar along the top. I couldn't even summon an Uber to speak with the driver.
Why haven't you quit yet? There's been more ugly stuff coming out about Uber over the past few years than basically the entire of the rest of the tech industry combined.
I mean, we can say "It's wrong for you to keep using the thing on your phone that's installed and works," but all that will do is make people conceal that they still use Uber.
A better approach might be an anecdote: My friend actually made the switch to Lyft, and apparently it's just as quick and effective as Uber. She hasn't had any complaints as far as I know.
I've had ethical qualms about Uber for a long time, but I've always gotten good service.
Unfortunately, I had a Lyft experience that really turned me off. They matched me with a driver who was 5-10 minutes away (I believe he was at Millbrae BART). He messaged to ask where I was going, and then once I responded he moved his car slightly farther away from me, and then parked it. We waited ~10 mins. He was unable or unwilling to cancel the ride that he wouldn't give us, wouldn't respond back to me, and Lyft customer support didn't seem to care.
It was infuriating. Either do a better job matching, lower the penalties for drivers canceling, or enforce the same/worse penalties for refusing to pick up. If the driver's best course of action is to ignore your customer, you have a problem. Maybe that's changed since then, but it's not necessarily a good thing for consumers that drivers say they prefer Lyft.
I use both, infrequently, and rationalize it because my rides are being subsidized by investors. I think short of dramatic leadership changes, Uber can't fix their corruption. I'm hoping they run out of investors willing to give them cash, or they're disrupted by something even better. As long as they have the best product, I think they'll continue to grow.
I've used the service a thousand times without this issue and I just cancel the ride (without a fee) if its taking too long. No reason to blame the platform for one driver especially given that you'll use Uber instead who probably hired the exact same driver.
If you're cancelling because the driver isn't showing up, there's no fee. I've definitely cancelled rides after waiting 10 minutes and I've never ever been hit with a fee. My vague understanding is if it's clear the driver isn't going to get to you within the ETA, then cancelling is ok, but since I've never been presented with a fee in the first place, I've never sought clarification on that.
Almost everyone I know has switched (myself included), and we haven't had any issues. The fares are sometimes higher for long-distance pools, but that's pretty much the only difference I've noticed.
You have look at microsoft to get a comparable amount of BS.
At least microsoft had the civility to only screw over other software shops (and occassionally tinker with government lobbying and standardization bodies). Uber has sexism, anti-police conspiracies, oppression of its own workforce, blatantly illegal operating procedures, etc...
I have no reason to believe this, but I am waiting for the story were the uber CEO makes of with all the investors money.
Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok.
I don't see a big problem with it. If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? If it's not OK to do the original thing then that rather than trying to avoid being punished for it is the fundamental issue.
I find it a little odd people are upset over this if they weren't similarly upset over Uber skirting regulations to begin with. Uber has been guilty of some other bad behavior toward employees, drivers and competitors that I find unacceptable, but Greyball seems fundamentally reasonable.
> If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it?
Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obstruction of justice", to disincentivize people from covering up their illegal activities by any means necessary.
Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. Most obstruction of justice statutes I found and read in 5 minutes of google searching required specific acts like destroying records you know to be part of an ongoing investigation or making false statements to officials, not simply any act intended to avoid the attention of law enforcement.
> Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you.
You're right, but as other people in this thread have mentioned, Uber wasn't simply refusing service to the suspected investigators (which probably would've been fine): they were actively wasting their time, making them think a ride was on the way when it wasn't. That tips it into obstruction of justice.
Can anyone comment if this would fly in Europe? AIUI, you can only use information for the purposes for which it was taken. Taking someone's credit card number is for processing payment. Filtering it for fraud seems like it would be okay, but "checking if they're a narc" seems like it would cross the line.
(Yes, I asked about this in the last thread, but my question and the replies were about credit card/PCI agreements, not privacy laws.)
No, it would be illegal according to EU data protection laws: "Article 8 prohibits the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life"[0].
As you've mentioned, basically you can only use user's data for purposes stated in EULA (and they can't be overly abstract i.e. "we do anything we like with your data"). Though, sadly it's rare to see enforcement of data privacy laws except few show-off trials.
P.S. currently data protection laws vary a little country by country, but even more strict, EU-wide data protection laws will enter into force next year that also applies (on paper) to non-EU companies that serves EU citizens[1]. See more at http://www.eugdpr.org/
So if supported allegations of rampant corporate sexism and sexual harassment[1][2], legally suspect actions during corporate events[3], the "Greyball" toolkit[4], departure of at least seven high-level executives in recent months[5], a tone-deaf and self-aggravating CEO[6], financial analysts pointing out the massive scope of investor subsidies and lack of profit opportunities[7], and questionable classifications of their own (unacknowledged) employees[8][9], not to mention a history of all sorts of other anti-competitive and marginally legal activities[10], aren't enough to sway you to stop using Uber, what will?
For me, it was the redesign. Travis talking about how picking a corporate colour scheme was a "process of self discovery" was just too much SV nonsense. Atoms and Bits indeed.
Also didn't help they ran a big article about leaving Postgres because they couldn't assume their engineers understand DB transactions. Their example, IIRC, was a dev sending an email inside of a DB transaction and not knowing this would consume resources and cause contention. Normalising that kind of incompetency isn't positive.
But hey, in Guatemala I've got no alternative and Uber works great and is far safer than a taxi, so hey...
Not that I've heard about. A local taxi company has an app that doesn't install properly and won't respond to emails about it. But they are running huge ads talking about how they're so "friendly" and "trusted". At the same time, the taxi drivers are threatening violence if the government doesn't boot Uber.
Uber in Guatemala actually visits the drivers' houses, in addition to requiring police backgrounds on them and so on. It's far safer. The prices are far lower, too. Drivers make more than they'd make working in a call center, where unskilled English speakers can make $600-$700.
It's also providing some investment opportunities. Use Uber's fleet management system to buy a bunch of cars and rent them out to drivers that don't own their own car.
On the whole, Uber, in Guatemala, seems entirely positive.
Susan Fowler's blog post was what caused me to go from freely alternating between Uber and Lyft (and slightly favoring Uber because Lyft encourages Waze, and I refuse to ride in a car with Waze running) to using Lyft 95% of the time and only using Uber when Lyft is in a surge and I need to leave now.
> Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces.
But if you're a startup that fails early, it doesn't. The thinking is that you do whatever it takes to make it, and that if your nefarious deeds ever come to light it just proves that you've made it big enough to cop some scrutiny.
> Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok
I do find it amusing the Government of the US does this to basically every person and company, all the time, but if one company tries to do it back.. well, then, that's really bad and shame on them!
> For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement.
Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces. You can't run a successful company and get away with this stuff, especially as a start up when everyone is out to get you even moreso.
I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.