Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble
from the bad-idea dept
Crisis management must be a full-time job at Uber. I've argued in the past that some of the attacks on the company are greatly exaggerated, but it keeps running into crisis after crisis -- many of them avoidable. The latest is a big scoop in the NY Times about how Uber has a special program called Greyball (a play on "blackball," get it?) that helped it determine if regulators were trying to get rides and then avoid sending a car. Here are the basics from the article by Mike Isaac:
One technique involved drawing a digital perimeter, or “geofence,” around the government offices on a digital map of a city that Uber was monitoring. The company watched which people were frequently opening and closing the app — a process known internally as eyeballing — near such locations as evidence that the users might be associated with city agencies.
Other techniques included looking at a user’s credit card information and determining whether the card was tied directly to an institution like a police credit union.
Enforcement officials involved in large-scale sting operations meant to catch Uber drivers would sometimes buy dozens of cellphones to create different accounts. To circumvent that tactic, Uber employees would go local electronics stores to look up device numbers of the cheapest mobile phones for sale, which were often the ones bought by city officials working with budgets that were not sizable.
In response, Uber has claimed that the program was designed to greylist "terms of service violators", but if that's the case it can just kick them off the service and tell them they violated the ToS. From the report, it seems clear that even if the program was used for ToS violators, it was also used against regulators.
I've certainly been vocal about the fact that I think city and state regulations limiting Uber/Lyft and the like are generally bad ideas. What may have started out as a good idea to prevent cabbies taking advantage of riders has turned into quite a corrupt system used to limit competition and artificially inflate prices. I think that the idea behind Uber and Lyft and similar services is super powerful. But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
Directly building an app to avoid regulators just looks really, really shady, and it's going to come back to haunt you (just ask Zenefits or Volkswagen). And while the article claims that the tool might be a CFAA violation, I don't see how that's possible, unless it involved even more nefarious activities under the hood (none of what's revealed in the article would seem to qualify as a CFAA violation, even under the really stretched interpretations of the CFAA that we've seen).
But there still are some other questions. At least in the EU, some are already asking if the use of the tool violates the E-Commerce Directive or Data Protection rules.
The bigger question, honestly, is why do this kind of stuff? I'll never understand why companies feel the need to take the shadiest route possible, when they could have just gone with the upfront path of explaining why what they're doing is so useful and powerful, and fighting for it, rather than trying to play silly games. Yes, you can make arguments about how they're trying to grow rapidly, and yes, (as we've discussed) these local regulators are often a nuisance for bad reasons. But this kind of stuff is clearly going to bounce back and create problems later on. Just fight these fights head on, without playing shady games that undermine basically everything else about your business.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: car hailing, greyball, regulations, ridesharing
Companies: uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Think It Through
I agree that naming a program "Greyball" is too cute and likely will snowball just because it "sounds bad" without anyone really thinking it through.
Why does the government get a pass to have agents buy a dozen phones to appear as if they are a dozen users, yet Uber does not get a pass pretending to have cars in places they are not? Moreover, the NYT article never once says what laws or regulations are being "enforced". Is the government justified in lying about its own conduct to "enforce" unspecified laws or regulations? And depending on the ends, does that justify the government's means?
Don't forget that a city's taxi regulator has the same self-interest as the taxi cab drivers themselves: protecting their own job. If the taxi market is disrupted sufficiently, their own job is at risk. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think It Through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think It Through
The police then have to resort to ever more intrusive measures to find these people. And they cry foul when the 'criminals' then adapt and use new tech to get around that surveillance. Hence the complaints about the use of encryption and demands for backdoors.
Its all part and parcel of the same thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think It Through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think It Through
Did buggy-whip makers become victims when the automobile rolled out?
In any case cab companies and cities that have created a cartel - that would be illegal if the local government weren't part of the scheme - and then suffer a loss because others exercise their right to freely trade with other people . . . fuck 'em.
Whatever makes Uber problematic - its not trying to get out from under rights violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/31/study-uber-and-lyft-racial-discrimination/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a fair characterization... but doesn't change the fact that it was dumb to try to hide from them in this manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As bad as some things have gotten in this country, I don't think we're quite at the 'take up arms' stage. At least not over the taxi cartel.
That it has caused them problems is part of what I'm going to assume is a calculated cost/benefit analysis - where they figured they could weather the PR hit. After all, the only people really outraged by Uber doing what pretty much *everyone* does in their day-to-day life (structure their affairs to minimize government interference) are the people who hated Uber simply for existing.
So, the people who hated Uber before hate it still, the people who liked Uber before don't care - as long as their rides are on time and clean - and the rest of the people have to get the kids ready for school.
Playing the lottery is a dumb decision even if you win - not everything that ends up with a bad outcome was a dumb decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Someone at Uber knew the regulations and decided they were not worth following, despite knowing that decision could get the company in trouble. Someone at Uber decided to scam government officials by creating Greyball and use it as a way of hiding Uber activity from said officials. Someone at Uber believed that the best way to get around the law was to break it and hide their illegal activity.
If that someone was the CEO, I can assume he will try to "blame-share" the responsibility with his employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to opt out of a lot of interference - and I have by choosing the jurisdiction I live in. Just because the government says it needs to monitor and control something doesn't mean that it really does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you mind if oil companies dumped pollution in your local river? Would you mind if a car dealership sold you a faulty car? Would you mind if you were injured on the job due to your employer's own carelessness?
And would you mind if they all went ¯_(ツ)_/¯ about those things when asked to take full responsibility for them?
The point of any regulation — in spirit, if not always in practice — is to give government a role in protecting citizens from those who might seek to harm them through behaviours that are either careless or intentional. OSHA regulations, pollution controls, and laws against selling "lemons" are all regulations meant to protect ordinary citizens.
Why should Uber get to "opt out" of the same kinds of regulations that govern the commercial transportation industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much the various assumptions behind that answer are or are not true is something to which I cannot personally testify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only other options are to submit or to take up arms.
Uber has elevated civil disobedience to a business model.
With some discomfort, I have to say I admire them for it.
I'm generally a fan of the rule of law - if the law sucks it should be changed, not violated.
But sometimes the only practical way to get it changed is civil disobedience. Esp. so with victimless "crimes".
If Uber hadn't played games like this, they'd never have gotten the volume, revenue, and number of (voting) customers needed to get the law changed, disrupting the taxi cartels.
Lots of other more law-abiding types have tried to break into the market for decades, and got stomped every time. Uber has found a model that works - blatant, open violation of the law, working in favor of customers. And finding sneaky ways to avoid punishment long enough to reap credit for it.
This can only work when it's the law that's criminal, not the violators. But maybe we need more of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The only other options are to submit or to take up arms.
I've come to some curious conclusions about taxicabs. I don't think you can have healthy taxicabs unless you also have healthy public transportation and healthy pedestrian access. Taxicabs ought to be something of a luxury, the way restaurants with waitresses are something of a luxury. Such restaurants have their proper place, but they don't try to compete with McDonald's, and they don't try to compete with Seven-Eleven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only other options are to submit or to take up arms.
Opinions, of course, will differ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times shows why Uber needs 215MB for its spy app
http://www.cultofmac.com/304401/ubers-android-app-literally-malware/
http://www.gironsec.com/blog /2014/11/what-the-hell-uber-uncool-bro/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13763714/uber-location-dat a-tracking-app-privacy-ios-android
Here's the full list of all the data Uber is collecting through its Android app [in 2014; certainly more by now]:
-- Accounts log (Email)
-- App Activity (Name, PackageName, Process Number of activity, Processed id)
-- App Data Usage (Cache size, code size, data size, name, package name)
-- App Install (installed at, name, package name, unknown sources enabled, version code, version name)
-- Battery (health, level, plugged, present, scale, status, technology, temperature, voltage)
-- Device Info (board, brand, build version, cell number, device, device type, display, fingerprint, IP, MAC address, manufacturer, model, OS platform, product, SDK code, total disk space, unknown sources enabled)
-- GPS (accuracy, altitude, latitude, longitude, provider, speed)
-- MMS (from number, MMS at, MMS type, service number, to number)
-- NetData (bytes received, bytes sent, connection type, interface type)
-- PhoneCall (call duration, called at, from number, phone call type, to number)
-- SMS (from number, service number, SMS at, SMS type, to number)
-- TelephonyInfo (cell tower ID, cell tower latitude, cell tower longitude, IMEI, ISO country code, local area code, MEID, mobile country code, mobile network code, network name, network type, phone type, SIM serial number, SIM state, subscriber ID)
-- WifiConnection (BSSID, IP, linkspeed, MAC addr, network ID, RSSI, SSID)
-- WifiNeighbors (BSSID, capabilities, frequency, level, SSID)
-- Root Check (root status code, root status reason code, root version, sig file version)
-- Malware Info (algorithm confidence, app list, found malware, malware SDK version, package list, reason code, service list, sigfile version)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the question is "why" the answer
If the question is "why" the answer is almost always going to be "money".
I'll never understand why companies feel the need to take the shadiest route possible, when they could have just gone with the upfront path of explaining why what they're doing is so useful and powerful, and fighting for it, rather than trying to play silly games.
This assumes that the playing field is level in the governmental arena.
It almost never is.
I can tell you that with absolute confidence with 15 years trying to get government contracts and 15 years on the inside of the government where I could see the process of granting those contracts that petty loyalty and "gifting" almost always play a very major role in city, county, authority, and state contacts. Even more blatant is the state official that would put out a memo with "preferred vendors". It always tracked political contributions in Texas. If you didn't give a lot, or gave to the "wrong" party, then that company would absolutely not be given a contract, even if it was low bid or offered more services at the same price. And no, despite many people over a decade turning in whistle blower reports, few investigation were ever made by state enforcement. The few that did take place were because the person involved in the contract grant was themselves of the "wrong" party or were preformed by federal law enforcement. And yes, the state howled "STATES RIGHTS" every single time.
There is absolutely no question in my, or many others, minds that the process is about as corrupt as it could possibly be without having the bribes paid for in cash, on the counter, in front of God as a witness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds to me like you are catfishing. Just like all your other comments. I would say try Harder, but I'm just guessing that is your lawyer's name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was old news in Australi
Every fine was paid for by Uber and now demerit points were not recorded, so it was basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for the drivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering the toxic corporate culture at Uber, we are left wondering how many other shenanigans they are trying to pull off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When a corporation is hoodwinking the government, only God (and possibly the CEO) know what that corporation is doing in re: its employees and customers. A not-zero number of regulations exist to protect regular jackoffs (thank you "Metalocalypse") from being trampled by "the free market".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you needed a good example on how powerful metadata, big data and profiling are, here you go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll never understand why companies feel the need to take the shadiest route possible,
I would imagine it is partially because this is a popular element of our culture, and everyone doing it imagines they are the good guys.
Not sure what is up with Uber, but this is the third or fourth completely different shady thing i have heard about them this week. If i am not lazy, I will find what the others were as i paid less attention to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
A business is not required to pay more tax than it is legally obligated to pay. It is not obligated to provide services to the state without consideration. It is not obligated to testify against itself.
What I see uniformly, is a bunch of gum flapping across a broad base of corporate media, to which TD is apparently now a member.
What has been trotted out in the Times and the Post is just rediculous from a legal perspective. No reasonable legal argument has been made. There have been numerous cases before SCOTUS that have found time and time again, that a perpetrator is NOT responsible for the incompetence of the state.
This is clearly a reversal of TD's past positions on disclosure. Care to explain why?
Clearly there is a massive hatchet job going on right now. My guess is that all of this is probably about some billionaire wanting to buy Uber, and using the trinity to tank the stock in advance of an attempted takeover. And TD joins CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Except the trinity got paid to suck the stock brokers dick, and TD did it for free.
Service localization isn't different if you do it to the state. If it is criminal, it is criminal. But that has nothing to do with Uber. It has to do with highly localized profiling for the purposes of exploiting people.
So some cops lost. Boo Fucking Hoo. The Constitution rights of the citizenry have been loosing for a decade on now. So why is it all of a sudden "shady" when it is done to manipulate the state, and not when it is done to manipulate the vote, the price a a loaf of bread, etc. etc. etc. ?
Yeaaaaa. Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
I'll add that to my file cabinet filled with witty Thadisms. Though it is creating a slip hazard now, what with all the whining and butt hurt pouring out over the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
FYI, "whining and butt-hurt pouring" is a mixed metaphor.
Always nice to have a new fan, though; I really should blog more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, that doesn't mean the company should get a pass for this kind of stuff.
It's cool, though; when I ran across Ed Palermo today, I probably wouldn't have even thought of making a blog post about it if Man-Crush over there hadn't reminded me I had a blog just sitting there waiting for more Zappa posts.
This one doesn't even have any puddling butthurt or whatever he called it. I'd say that's a win for everybody. Nobody wants puddling butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would imagine with Volkswagen getting caught cheating emissions tests, that they are are work now building a much harder to detect system.
It is the same with states that outlaw radar detectors. As police come up with new devices to detect radar detectors, manufacturers modify their products so new police devices cannot detect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What?
That's not the expression, that's not how you spell "trap", and that analogy doesn't make a lick of sense. "Someone will build a better mouse"? What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, it seems to me that, absent any coercion on the part of Uber (and there isn't any) or the government, people seem to think Uber offers them more value for their dollar earned or spent.
Or are you going to tell us that these drivers have 'false consciousness' and don't really know what's best for themselves - but you'll be happy to take the Presidium and set the country on a course for prosperity. 5 years at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Losing tens of billions of dollars" can be empirically tested. "Paying their drivers a sub-living wage" can be empirically tested. It is possible that he is *wrong*, but *not even wrong* implies that there's no way of disproving what he's saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Speaking of which, if you are catfishing at their direction, even implicitly, there are some friendly state bar officials who really might be interested in meeting you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Techdirt commenter community, for the most part. See that red button on the far right side of the comment's header? That allows any given commenter to flag a comment for being abusive, trolling, or spam. I assume that if enough commenters flag the comment, either the comment is automatically hidden or whoever moderates comments notices the number of flags and hides the comment. (I do not know which one happens; I do not moderate the comments.)
But a hidden comment is just that — hidden from view. It does not get deleted, but it does get marked as "flagged by the community" (meaning the community sees it as a worthless comment).
As for…whatever point you were trying to make about "free speech", you appear to misunderstand the very concept. The First Amendment guarantees a person's right to speak and express themselves without government interference. With few exceptions (e.g., defamation, incitements of violence), the government cannot stop a person from saying whatever they wish. That said, the First Amendment neither guarantees someone a platform for their speech nor protects them from criticism. It also does not protect someone from societal consequences of their speech (e.g., being labelled "racist" for saying racist things). "Free speech" does not stand for "consequence-free speech". Oh, and while commercially-sponsored speech (i.e., "promoted posts") must follow certain regulations, it is otherwise wholly legal.
And as for the vaguely-worded problems you have with open source projects: Such projects allow people from all over the world to contribute their knowledge and skills towards improving a piece of software that can help all people. Hoarding that knowledge for profit, fame, or both strikes me as wasteful and egotistical.
You are not owed an explanation, nor do you deserve one. (Also, if this is who I think it is: You did not invent email.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can ask. Ask all the live-long day.
But you are not owed an explanation, nor do you deserve one.
I have read this blog regularly for somewhere near a decade. It is not "against America"; it is against stupidity and cruelty and reckless behavior. Its writers rail against the broken nature of our various intellectual property systems, DMCA abuse, police misconduct, censorship, and other such important issues because they affect Americans in negative ways. (This paragraph would get too long if I had to explain how.) If you believe Techdirt calling the American patent system "broken" is "un-American", I would ask you to explain how the patent system is not broken in light of the overwhelming factual evidence presented on Techdirt.
Whatever issues Techdirt may have with American inventors, it is because of their words and deeds. It is not due to said inventors being American. An inventor from any country can act like a fool or say something that makes them sound foolish; why should American inventors be exempt from criticism?
Oh, and one more thing: Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email.
There is a difference between your opinion ("thinking") and actual fact ("proving"). Nothing I have seen suggests that Techdirt is a blog driven by the love of a sponsor's money. If you have compelling evidence to the contrary, now might be a good time to show it.
And what is so wrong with "propaganda" for open source/free software? Plenty of open source projects are excellent pieces of software — I should know, because I am using one right now (Mozilla Firefox) and I use several others on a daily basis. What makes open source software so evil that you feel you must openly demonise it?
Expose your mission statement then, Mr. Harder.
[And just so I do not have to reply to you twice...]
Mr. Harder, this blog is not a court of law.
And as for your questions, they seem an awful lot like a naked attempt to defame Mr. Masnick as "un-American" because Techdirt accepts money from open source foundations based in both the US and abroad, because it allows people outside of the US to comment on Techdirt articles, and because...well, because you cannot be fucked to do ten seconds worth of reading to see if a post is a "promoted" one or a regular one.
I have said it before, and I will say it again for effect: You are not owed an answer to the questions you have asked, nor do you deserve one.
(Oh, and next time you want to comment here, try not being so blatant about who you are. The "on the record" stuff, the specific questions about his "mission statement", the just-on-the-borderline attempts to defame Mr. Masnick as "un-American" so maybe he might "slip up" and make your case for Mr. Ayyadurai go a little easier...you could not make it easier to spot you from a mile away unless you actually signed your name to your posts, Mr. Harder.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, if I'm reading you right, you are kind of speaking as Sharik's attorney, right? So, I believe you have admitted he makes his money from socialist Open Source organizations here and abroad, right? Mike is speaking for the socialist shitbags, but getting paid like a capitalist to do it, right? My guess is you are more honorable, and likely contribute your valuable time for free based on your principles (misformed as they might be), right?
Thank you again, my new socialist friend (yes, we can be friends even if we disagree). I admire your honest commitment to one side of the argument (unlike Sharik). I believe if you consider the issue more deeply, and apply more historical perspective, you will see the real beauty in the American ideology, which embraces capitalism (like Sharik does secretly). What I can't stomach are those phony, lying dogs like Michael Masnick (Sharik) to intend to profit from their bullshit paid propaganda. You strike me as a better class of person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. It is grade-level playground namecalling bullshit sitting behind a thin veneer of supposed "intelligence".
If telling the truth and sharing personal opinions about a man who has no more claim to inventing the email system that everyone uses today than I do counts as "malicious nastiness"...well...that seems like a personal opinion of Techdirt's writing, not an objection that Techdirt has knowingly made false statements that would equal defamation.
And if you could prove that any regular Techdirt contributor has written anything "at the behest of" a given sponsor (other than sponsored posts), now would probably be a good time to prove your accusation. I mean, you do want to have at least an appearance of credibility, right?
No. I am not a lawyer, I am not associated with Mike Masnick in any personal capacity, and I am not associated with either Mr. Masnick or Techdirt in a professional capacity. I am what Dethklok would call "a regular jackoff".
If he has, I do not see how this would somehow be a bad thing, so long as he has followed any necessary ethical and legal guidelines in this area.
If you can prove he is "speaking for the socialist shitbags", now would be the time to do so.
Yes, actually. As it stands, I do not currently see my time as worth anything, for I do not make much of anything that is worth anyone else's time. On the odd occasions where I do make something worth sharing, I make it free for anyone else to view and I do not actively enforce my copyrights. I am not entitled to the fruits of my labor; I am entitled only to the labor itself.
Do not mistake my general lack of insults and my sparing use of profanities as a sign of respect. The only reason I do not actively insult you and spew multiple profanities per sentence is because I would have to care about who you are to do that. You do not have mine and you have done nothing to earn it; trying to compliment me in an attempt to stroke my ego does not help you in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, let's see, can I actually prove that Michael Malice is speaking for the Socialist Shitbags? You might be right, it could be tricky, Mr. Crickets is pretty good at hiding his revenue sources and never responding to questions. But that might change in the future, since it has now become an issue of public interest and his financial records could reasonably be asked for in his current court case. Can I prove that he secretly authors materials under phony names, and then cites them as sources for his paid socialist propaganda, so his socialist shitbag sponsors can peddle their socialist shitbat code? Actually, I think I could, and I'm just waiting for the right moment to do so. Has that moment come? I'm just not sure, what do you think? Time to call him out as a fraud and a liar, and prove it with actual references?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Donald Trump still lost the electoral vote by over three million votes. And not nearly as many people as you might think share your eerily obsessive devotion to him.
You are not owed a look at his financial information, nor have you proven why you deserve one. You are not owed answers to your inane questions by Mr. Masnick or anyone else, nor have you proven why you deserve any. If I were you, I would prove why I have standing to demand such things before I go demanding them.
This line of thinking assumes that the case will go past discovery. Last time I checked, facts are the best defense against a charge of defamation, and it will be very hard for Shiva Ayyadurai to either disprove the facts about the development of email during the ARPANET days up or make those facts disappear.
"Mr. Masnick authors material for Techdirt under multiple assumed identities and cites them as sources for further Techdirt material at the behest of corporate sponsors" sounds like a serious accusation. You would require factual, credible, and independently verifiable evidence to prove this accusation to be true. If you have such evidence, this would be the time to present it and render your arguments credible. If you do not have that evidence, your argument has no credibility, which means you have no credibility.
So yeah — if you can actually prove your conspiracy theory bullshit, now would be the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am an asshole.
Then you have nothing. Your arguments are invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then it might surprise you to learn that I was born and raised in, and I have never travelled outside of, the United States of America. I happen to believe that treating all scientific, technological, and even artistic knowledge as something only a select handful of people should ever know is what I would call a "dick move".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
America has some rather intelligent people living and working in it. I would never deny this fact. But this country alone does not have the market cornered, so to speak, on intelligence and knowledge. Open source projects give people outside of the United States — people who may lack the resources to create a full-scale project of their own — a chance to contribute their knowledge.
That you view hoarding knowledge of any kind as an "American belief", as something to be proud of, frankly disgusts me.
I am under no illusion that all information and knowledge should be "free". But the bulk of knowledge in any area of expertise should be free for all peoples. Locking it up behind paywalls or making it nigh impossible for the average person to learn reeks of egotism — of capitalism's incessant need to make rich people richer at the expense of (and through the exploitation of) poor people.
(And by the by, America is not a purely capitalist country. Government entitlement programs such as Medicare/Medicaid and SNAP (a.k.a. "food stamps") are forms of socialism baked into the country's capitalist economic system.)
I am not in favor of American supremacy. I do not subscribe to the idea of "American exceptionalism"; it reeks of zero-sum, "I got mine so fuck you" thinking. I can be an American and believe everyone can potentially contribute towards the improvement of human life everywhere — and that open source projects of all kinds can do just that.
If you think that somehow makes me "less American", I cordially invite you to please kiss my entire American-born ass. It is literally the only thing that has a single shit to offer you and your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I have to agree with you about knowledge being free, that rings very true to my American beliefs. And I agree with you about America not being a purely capitalist country (at the moment). But I have a feeling that my friend Donald Trump will straighten that out, given a little time.
I am not in favor of American "supremacy", which seems to imply a birthright, either. I am in favor of American exceptionalism, as expressed by exceptional Americans, within the rights and privileges of the American system. One of those rights has to do with patent rights, which I see as the bane of Open Source, and why Michael Malice (oops, Sharik) makes his money by bashing patents and patent holders. How about we stop defending the rights of foreigners to exploit exceptional Americans (as they do through TechDirt), and defend Americans building a better country for Americans (that seems right, doesn't it?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do not want to learn from me. I would weave phrases that would make you wish you had never learned how to read. Two decades-plus on the Internet, many of which were spent reading some really vile shit, will do that to you.
Calling him your "friend" does not impress me, nor does it make me think any better of you. (If anything, it makes me think less of you.)
Same thing — all you want is for people to think "America is Number One, everyone else can go get as fucked". It shows in how you continuously extoll the virtues of "American" whatever (e.g. "American beliefs", "American capitalism", "American inventors"). Your continual usage of the adjective "American" at nearly any chance you get reeks of obsessive national pride that blinds you to the myriad of problems within this country.
But hey, since you want to go down that road, I have a good question for you: How proud are you of the "American exceptionalism" that has left the citizens of Flint, Michigan without clean drinking water?
Yes, and that is mostly because the patent system appears broken and busted to anyone with a little common sense. Techdirt has made the case for this line of thinking across numerous posts over its long existence.
How about we stop bitching and whining about people from around the world (including Americans) contributing knowledge and expertise to projects from differing countries (including America) and defend the right of those projects to exist? I like the open source software that I use, after all. I like things such as open standards, openly viewable code, and the open sharing of knowledge. You will not make me feel ashamed of my support for open source projects; to do that, you would have to prove why supporting them at all is shameful.
And I cannot see you doing that. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you are either delusional, a shitty troll, or both. Right now, I am leaning towards "both".
(Told you I was an asshole.)
I have never heard anyone ever say that, and I cannot see how that is even remotely true.
Why should an open source project be forced to patent its output if no one contributing to the project wants it patented?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong-headed? Maybe; that is a matter of perspective. But it is certainly not illegal to complain about the patent system, no matter who you are.
Unless they are actively breaking the law, I have a simple two-word reaction to this: "So what?"
There you go with that "American exceptionalism" bullshit again. I was born and raised in America, and even I am not fucking stupid enough to believe America is "the best country in the world" (though not for lack of trying on the part of America's declining education system).
So long as a company does not break laws, they can "hide behind" whatever propaganda they want, for all I care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thankfully most of us are too smart to fall for that nonsense. Let's all agree that when the name-calling starts, the argument is over since we're dealing with a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But it is far too long-winded to be of any great effect. You should have just called him a "socialist shitbag" — far more punchy and easier to remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a bizarre off-topic question. The answer is $0. We've never taken any money from any "Free Software" foundations.
Yes, I'm employed by Floor64, an American company based in Redwood City, California.
Wut?
Um. Most of our posts are "actual posts". On the rare occasions when we have had sponsored posts, those are clearly disclosed.
You seem to be thinking there's some grand conspiracy theory that simply is a figment of your imagination. Elsewhere I see you claim to have evidence of all of this. Please do post it here, because such evidence literally cannot exist, because what you are claiming is not even remotely true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i.e. they can see on their screen ANYONE's full unredacted credit card number, expiry date and CVV (rear security number)
God KNOWS how many 'accidental' purchases were made against company credit cards for government departments and large corporations who may not even have noticed the purchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uber Viable? Culture of Cheating
I'll go with our Anonymous coward who is concerned about how *ANY* uber employee has access to the payment methods....
That's the *next* crisis waiting to happen! Will CC processors shutting them down be next?
Seems to me, using Ars Technica's words, Uber is run by (basket, foot, base)ballers. I think it implies there's a culture of cheating. Here, they cheat the regulators. Last week it was women for sex. Six months ago, it was lawsuits in California over how they treated their drivers.
So can they discriminate? Hell yes, there's way too much data...and no culture in place that makes that wrong.
The right question is whether they will ever wake up to the fact that if they want to make it in the long run, they need to practice good ethics. Without that, the recent past is an excellent predictor of the future!
***
Now, as to what I, as Joe Jackoff, thinks is actually required for ridesharing:
**1) Everybody is afraid that J. Random Passenger or J. Random Driver might be some kind of monster that is going to hurt them or rob them. In 1970, people in the US stopped hitch-hiking for this reason. Resolve the safety issue, transportation can be a whole lot more efficient and roads less crowded.
**2) My car, with four seats and one person, travels places. A little help with gas and repairs would be appreciated, especially if it is *fair*.
**3) I need to be able to show up where I'm supposed to be *reliably* and *conveniently*.
By the way, I think a good argument can be made that America became the great economic engine it has been precisely because parts of the economy became *fair*, and ignored artificial, socially-defined constraints on who could do what job and paid *fair* wages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Zenefits link is broken : hef
[ link to this | view in chronology ]