Uber Revises Privacy Policy, Wants More Data From Users

itwbennett tips news that Uber has amended its privacy policy, making it much simpler to read and understand. But the policy also includes changes to what data Uber collects about its riders. Beginning July 15th, the Uber phone app will keep track of a rider's location while it's running in the background. Uber says riders will be able to opt out of this tracking. The policy changes also allow for advertising using the rider's contact list: "for example the ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family." The revision of Uber's privacy policy followed complaints at the end of last year that the company was overstepping its bounds.

Comments

Uber should start using

[Megaweapon]

adware-infested installers, perhaps hosted on SourceForge, which could also track customers.

Re: Uber should start using

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this also include the uber app that at&t pushed onto my phone as a non removable system app? There are NO UBER DRIVERS in upstate, backwoods New York

Re: Uber should start using

[thedonger]

Does this also include the uber app that at&t pushed onto my phone as a non removable system app? There are NO UBER DRIVERS in upstate, backwoods New York

I smell opportunity!

Re: Uber should start using

[TheCarp]

Clearly you have never been there, all he can smell is cow shit. There aint no money out that way and what money there is, can drive itself around just fine.

Who would call uber for anything when NOTHING is within a 30-45 minute one way drive? Nobody who would need it could ever afford an uber ride, and the uber driver would would have a 30 min ride himself to get anywhere.

Re: Uber should start using

[thedonger]

Or I was joking.

Re: Uber should start using

[KGIII]

Upstate or Northern New York? I have been to both and I am assured that there is a difference and that some folks will be quite adamant about it. I am not sure where the line is and I suspect it is a bit of a fuzzy line. Either way, I am curious... I would think that Upstate (say Buffalo) would have Uber but Northern, even as close to Buffalo as Niagara would not have Uber... As an aside, the skyway in Buffalo is awesome... Yes I have an opinion and I think it is valid and authoritative.

Re: Uber should start using

[TheCarp]

or I really just wanted to say "all he can smell is cow shit".

WTF?

[gstoddart]

The policy changes also allow for advertising using the rider's contact list: "for example the ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family."

Wait, you think a user can give you permission to spam their friends and family?

How about go fuck yourself and not assuming that because you know Bob, you can scrape his contact list to spam Alice and Mary ... that screams of an epic level of ass-hattery. Because Bob can't legally give you permission to spam Alice and Mary.

Sounds like in addition to being just a dispatcher for illegal cabs, Uber is also a bunch of self entitled assholes who want to spam your friends.

Fuck you, Uber.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome to the internet of things, if you would argue as to what this "ass-hattery" has to do with IoT... then I present to you this "business model"

Re:WTF?

[dunkindave]

Wait, you think a user can give you permission to spam their friends and family?

Someone at Uber has been studying the LinkedIn business plan.

Re:WTF?

[gstoddart]

This is quite honestly why I'm getting away from apps.

Generally, the web page works just fine from mobile, and you don't need to worry about the shit they're doing behind the scenes.

This whole "oh, just give us access to your contact list and we'll spam them" is crap. Same for things which say "hey, just give us your email password and we'll load your contacts".

How about piss off, and keep your hands off my private information.

Someone needs to start pelting the owners of Uber with eggs. Because this screams of greedy assholes deciding they get to have access to your entire phone.

In which case they deserve to die as a company as fast as possible.

If someone didn't explicitly opt-in to receive stuff from you, you have no business sending them stuff. In fact, isn't it illegal?

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Android M, you will simply be able to not grant permission to the Uber app to use the GPS or contact list. In fact, I wouldn't grant 90% of the apps I use anything other than basic internet access. No camera, mic, GPS, contacts, text messaging, nothing else. If they can't function like that, find a replacement that can.

Re:WTF?

[neminem]

No, they should start spamming the *friends and family* of the owners of Uber with eggs. After all, clearly they opted in to such treatment by being related to or friends of the people who did this, right?

Re:WTF?

[fustakrakich]

Sounds like in addition to being just a dispatcher for illegal cabs, Uber is also a bunch of self entitled assholes who want to spam your friends.

No, it's basically a bunch of Wall Street weenies riding the overinflated 'valuation' bubble.

Re:WTF?

[gstoddart]

And, of course, since they've given themselves permission to share with 3rd parties (again, to make themselves money) ... then they've also give permission to doxx them and their families.

Everything about this screams "greedy assholes trying to leverage your personal information for profit while loudly saying taxi regulations don't apply"

The more I hear about Uber, the harder is is to think this isn't a purely criminal enterprise.

Let's see, you want to do location tracking of everybody with your app, and you want access to their private information, and you claim the right to pass that on to 3rd parties ... yeah, no.

How about drop dead you greedy bastards?

Re:WTF?

[cdrudge]

It would depend a lot on how it's implemented and how it's to be used. Yeah, it would very much suck if they are just scraping all your contacts and then mass spamming them. But the privacy policy actually just says Contacts Information:

If you permit the Uber app to access the address book on your device through the permission system used by your mobile platform, we may access and store names and contact information from your address book to facilitate social interactions through our Services and for other purposes described in this Statement or at the time of consent or collection.

Notice the "If" at the beginning? And it's really no different than any other app that allows you to post/share/sent something to a friend or family member. What if one Uber app user could send a referral/promo code to a friend or family member. Uber servers may not be sending the information, it might come from your phone via SMS or email, but the app itself.

Re: WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf? My carrier put this on my phone. It cannot be removed or disabled. And now it can spam our exchange server at work? Lawsuit and phone bans incoming.

Re:WTF?

[TheGratefulNet]

100%. this is why I refuse to install 'apps' and I really use my smartphone to just check email, run gps and sometimes use voice to make calls. most of a smart phone is wasted on me since I'm not a typical teen or 20someething who 'buys into' the whole shebang, lack of privacy and all.

android is not really trustable, carriers are a joke for trust, app writers tend to abuse their position and write crap or malicious code and the whole thing is a steaming pile of shit.

the smart phone thing had a lot of potential but I see that we have ruined this medium and device just like the 'business guys' have totally ruined the web and the internet as a whole.

now, I had nothing against uber before hearing this; but now, I won't be caught dead inside one of their cars, now. this 'war on your customers' is nothing I care to help fund or support!

uber can go fuck off. they don't exist to me, given this stance of theirs.

(and now I'm starting to have 2nd thoughts about having ANY 'contacts' in my contact list. again, phones cannot be trusted and apps, even less. best way to not have your friends spammed is, I guess, just to NOT even populate the contact list! seriously - might just return to flip phones and call it a century..)

Re:WTF?

[oldmac31310]

I seem to have been using it for the wrong reasons.

Re:WTF?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We can only hope that Uber's notoriously...risk tolerant...approach to just ignoring regulations that they don't like will result in a lot of spam that is actually 'spam' for the purposes of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 being sent out.

That particular law is more or less a dead letter, given how easy covert or extraterritorial spamming is(and, of course, it's assorted gaping loopholes); but there are theoretical penalties that could stack up fast if you actually fuck up.

In this case, if grabbing people's contact lists doesn't count as 'email address harvesting' in the context of the prohibition on sending to harvested addresses, I'm not sure what would.

Honestly, it's downright impressive. Uber has managed to get markedly sleazier since they did their "Oh, 'god view' and threatening to stalk reporters who piss us off was naughty; we promise to be good..." charm offensive bullshit.

Re:WTF?

[thedonger]

No, they should start spamming the *friends and family* of the owners of Uber with eggs.

Is that spam and eggs; spam, spam, spam and eggs; or, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam?

Re:WTF?

[thedonger]

Sounds like in addition to being just a dispatcher for illegal cabs, Uber is also a bunch of self entitled assholes who want to spam your friends.

No, it's basically a bunch of Wall Street weenies riding the overinflated 'valuation' bubble.

Maybe they have had so much exposure based on bad publicity that they decided to make it standard operating procedure? They don't need to spam your friends because the internet is spamming the internet with talk of Uber.

Re:WTF?

[koreanbabykilla]

Dont get a flip phone. I hate smart phones so use an LG VU. I pay 10 to 20 bucks for em on ebay and have a pretty good stockpile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... Sounds like something you might like :)

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you permit the Uber app to access the address book on your device through the permission system used by your mobile platform,

So on Android at least, that's "if you permit the Uber app to install on your device".

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I'm starting to call "access creep": first you get the app to get access to a service of marginal quality. after you're roped in, they start slowly asking for more and more information: give us access to your location at all times. give us access to your contact list. give us access to your email account.

All so they can sell it to advertisers and try to sell you more crap that you don't need. At the end of the day, all social media has done is turn us and our lives - private or not - into a product that someone can sell for a quick buck.

thats why I do not use apps and will never use any social media site (linnkedin or facebook, etc).

Re:WTF?

[fluffernutter]

I wasn't defending it, I hate it. I'm completely into Socialism. I believe there is no other way but to have a government that cares about its people and the way of life in its own back yard.

Even if I were into the American way, it would be for full-out capitalism which never allows corporations to get too big to fail. This only happens with blatant government assistance to the corp.

Unfortunately America has let greed rule the roost and there isn't much thought being put into anything at all.

Re: WTF?

[jabberw0k]

Why would you use a computer you cannot control? Those gadgets are neither "smart" nor "telephones" they are computers that someone else controls. In other words, Telescreens (c.f., "1984") and anyone who pays money to subsidize such insanity is an enabler of an abusive relationship.

Re:WTF?

[SecurityGuy]

Because Bob can't legally give you permission to spam Alice and Mary.

I don't think you need any permission to send someone an email at all.

But yeah, I'd absolutely never agree to those terms. I'm willing to exchange money for a ride. I'm not willing to exchange money AND let you spam my friends. I'm not even willing to exchange spamming my friends if you give me the ride for free, Uber.

Re:WTF?

[Ed_Pinkley]

This kind of thing has been keeping me from getting a smartphone.

So, I have a question: The smartphones people carry are getting more and more powerful. Is there no way to run an app in a sandbox or an emulator that is running on the phone? Like a VM? I'd love to be able to install an app and only give it the contacts I want or let it have the GPS coordinates when I want.

Re:WTF?

[KGIII]

Most all invasions of privacy are couched with excuses like it being for your benefit, ease of access, and simplicity of function even if said function is an invasion of privacy in and of itself.

Re:WTF?

[KGIII]

*sighs*

Libertarianism != capitalism (in a pure sense and totally) regardless of what you think and what people have stated.

You are confusing Libertarians with the people who were ashamed to be Republican and have co-opted the term without actually knowing what Libertarianism is. A Libertarian is concerned about YOUR freedoms as an individual and there are many ways to go about achieving this. Pure capitalism is not, by any means, an acceptable method to achieve this if one is able to do simple math or has an iota of logic. Nobody sane believes the roads should all be toll roads, libraries should be privately funded, schools should be disbanded, or that the government should not do anything 'socialist.' In fact, many of us support things like Single Payer health-care (cheaper, more efficient, and could be done easily with simple logical legislature). Many of us actually support taxation that reflects income... It is amazing, is it not? Not every Democrat likes or voted for Obama... Imagine that!

I can understand your confusion given the state of media today. It is very much an us vs. them thing and a third party disrupts that so they must be outlandish kooks - all of them AND the people that they get on the ballot.

Most of this has been done in the past ten years or so. A number of vocal people have co-opted the term libertarian but, by no means, ascribe to the actual *isms. They are not in the majority (nor are the libertarians who advocate anarchy) and it behooves one to look into these sort of things rather than accepting what the media tells you or what the vocal minority espouses. You will find that much of what the Democrat beliefs are similar to or held by Libertarians. They are, by nature, concerned with YOUR liberties (and freedoms but let us not confuse the two as they are not the same - I will include a statement about that at the end) and, as such, they have much in common with, and are a member of, the political left - further left than the elected and vocal portions of the Democratic Party.

Libertarians are not about forcing you to do anything but are about ensuring that you can GENERALLY go about your business with your body and your choices so long as you are not harming anyone else. Libertarians do not oppose the EPA on principle, they oppose it because of its overreach beyond its charter or, in some cases, for its lack of applying the regulations evenly or not at all. Equality is key... Liberties are, well, right there in the name - regardless of how many Republicans (we can not just kick them out of the party) are well funded and vocal while they abuse the name Libertarian. They should be spelled with a small "l" while leaving the real folk (who do not believe, worship, or even think remotely like Ayn Rand) capital "L" for those who actually give a shit. Society is greater than one.

Concerning freedom vs. liberty... I will try to make this simple. I am FREE to kill you, I am not at LIBERTY to do so. There is nothing to prevent me from killing you but there are dire repercussions for doing so. It is a bit complex but not fungible like a commodity. We, as a society, put our liberties into a giant basket which we then withdraw the important ones to share equally across the citizenry. That is how it is supposed to work. There is a huge difference between freedom and liberty.

Re:WTF?

[KGIII]

after you're roped in, they start slowly asking for more and more information: give us access to your location at all times. give us access to your contact list. give us access to your email account.

Well dip me in butter and roll me in shit! That is not how it is supposed to be?

IOW - Good post.

Re:WTF?

[KGIII]

Also, that is not a colloquialism but it should be.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can. Don't use AT&T is a good starting point.

KGIII

(It seems I have been too vocal so /. does not want me to post any more. I feel strange and dirty because I am posting as AC. I made the comment, I own it. Posting as AC just seems wrong to me. I own up to my opinions.)

Re:WTF?

[infolation]

spam and eggs? Is this an extension of the monty python joke?

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice propaganda piece. In the real world, libertarians are just the loud arm of one political party, who want to rip out the structure of laws, and have the US fall into a banana republic, hoping for an Ayn Rand paradise. Same thing happened with people touting Marx's works... the results are virtually the same. In fact, both philosophies talk about the state disappearing under their literature.

The US was a libertarian's dream from post Civil War until the 1920s. No laws on businesses, and if anyone protested about work conditions, the Pinkertons were called to burn their homes down (the original reason why getting removed from a job is called fired), or just open fire on protesters. Just uttering the word "union" was grounds to have a person strung up (and their family as well, for good measure.) Well, this was sustainable until it all collapsed in 1929.

I'm sorry to say, but both libertarian-ism and communism belong in the dustbin of history.

Want to know what works? Government regulating and private industry doing its thing. China and Europe both have government and union members on company boards. Private industry won't make roads... but governments will.

It takes both, and it takes checks and balances. The US may have another 1929 sooner than we think... and unlike back then... where a collapse was just dealing with internal issues, it is also dealing with external pressures. If the US does collapse, there will be PLA troops seizing cities on the Pacific coast in hours.

Re:WTF?

[sjames]

Legally, no. However there are social norms against sharing someone's contact info without asking (possibly with a few exceptions if you're sure they will want the call), especially when you give it to an advertiser.

Re:WTF?

[KGIII]

My comment clearly answers those. I do not need to type it again because you refused to read.

Re:WTF?

[praxis]

Some operating systems have more granular permission options. It is certainly possible to be sensible with how much data one gives to a particular application.

Re: WTF?

[praxis]

It's interesting that the most walled of all the gardens actually gives the user the most control over their device.

Re:WTF?

[mjwx]

now, I had nothing against uber before hearing this; but now, I won't be caught dead inside one of their cars, now. this 'war on your customers' is nothing I care to help fund or support!

With the way Uber acts, why did you think this wouldn't happen?

The way they thumb their nose at the law means that its a safer assumption to assume that they will do arse-hattery like this. Uber is in the business of making money and your data is worth money. They are not honest businessmen who care about the reputation of their business, regulations designed to protect you or their customers in general.

I've never installed the Uber app, I took one look at the permissions it requested and figured out it was a data mining operation.

I've said it since the begining. The only thing Uber has going for it is the irrational hate people seem to have of taxis... Whilst they've capitalised on that fantasitcally, soon people will realise they've got all the same problems as traditional taxis and a few that traditional taxis dont have... Like this one.

No thanks

[bkr1_2k]

Just no. One more good reason not to use this "service". Uber is clearly run by a bunch of a-holes who think they can do whatever they want with your data. I'll pass. I hope this drives more customers away but, sadly, I doubt it will.

Re: No thanks

[praxis]

But when you call for a cab, they collect your number and location, and since they do this for everyone, pretty soon they have about as much information. And when you pay that single time with a credit card, bam - it all gets connected to a name. Without any privacy policies attached, not even a toothless one.

A taxi company knowing my phone number and location of pickup and location of drop-off is not "about as much information" as having my spacial coordinates and contact list at all times. Not even the same order of magnitude.

Your lament over taxi companies not having privacy policies is kind of odd. First, such policies protect the company, not you. Second, taxi companies have to follow rules, many of which cover privacy, which Uber flaunts.

Hijacking my friends' email addresses

[QuietLagoon]

...The policy changes also allow for advertising using the rider's contact list: "for example the ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family."...

There is absolutely no reason to send anything to my friends or family based upon what Uber finds rummaging through my phone.

.
If any of my friends or family want to receive such advertising, they should be the ones who need to approve the privacy policy. I cannot approve it for them.

Re:Hijacking my friends' email addresses

[Blue Stone]

Can't companies be fined for spamming in the USA?
The statement that Uber wants the "ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family" is a clear declaration to spam, since a person *cannot* opt someone else into recieving marketing emails.
Seems like any activity based on exploiting such contacts in said manner would clearly land Uber with not insignificant fines and/or criminal prosecution.
(IANAL etc.)
 

Re:Hijacking my friends' email addresses

[sconeu]

There's a reason it's called the CAN-SPAM act.

It's because spammers CAN SPAM you with impunity.

Re:Hijacking my friends' email addresses

[Alumoi]

Can't companies be fined for spamming in the USA?
The statement that Uber wants the "ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family" is a clear declaration to spam, since a person *cannot* opt someone else into recieving marketing emails.

As long as they send a message YOUR phone to said contacts, it's YOU who is spamming, not Uber. Spamming failbook style FTW

No thanks...

[helzerr]

Press-and-hold, click the "X", uninstalled!

But what about hacking of Uber accounts?

[OzPeter]

I saw this yesterday How did my dad's Uber account get hacked?

Well there we go

[TheCarp]

Uber finally did something that has convinced me not to ever use their service. I know it has an opt out but, I have no interest in any service that wants to track me and use me to advertise to my friends.

If I want to give them some word of mouth to my friends, I will do that when I choose, thanks.

I don't give a shit about skirting regulation or attacking the comfortable regulated complancency of the taxi cab industry. This however, this disgusts me.

Re:Well there we go

[gstoddart]

I don't give a shit about skirting regulation or attacking the comfortable regulated complancency of the taxi cab industry. This however, this disgusts me.

But it's all part of the same thing: we're special, and the rules don't apply to us, and in order to prop up our shit business model of ignoring the law, we're also going to be spamming assholes.

Basically their entire MO is to be assholes.

Yet another tech company which thinks the unicorn poop makes them magical and special.

Re:Well there we go

[gstoddart]

You drive for Yellow Cab, eh?

You're completely fucking stupid, eh?

Look, whatever libertarian fantasy world you live in which says a company gets to ignore regulations because their asshole business model says they're special is full of shit. In fact, it's downright delusional. "Boo hoo, teh regulations are teh evil. Horseshit.

Uber like to paint themselves as some crusading underdog being oppressed by the taxi lobby -- but that;'s a crock of shit.

They're a company dispatching bootleg cabs. That's it.

Followed by a temper tantrum that it's OK for them to break the law because they say so.

Sorry, but childish selfish douchebag isn't a business model. This is just more .com era crap of a tech company thinking they're magical because they say so.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

That's interesting, because the fact that they don't care about the quality of their cars or their drivers did it for me.

Re:Well there we go

[TheCarp]

Please I have taken the cabs in my areas a couple of times, I hever never once been impressed by the quality of cars, and only occasionally drivers.

Never tried uber, if they pass inspection they can't be much worst.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

I used to see the taxi industry as money grubbing whores as well. But now that I see how Uber wants to operate and the risk they incur to our economy and the quality of businesses that I deal with as a consumer (read as 'quality' not as 'affordability') I defend the taxi industry's right to protect their jobs in any way they see fit. Governments are saying screw you to the taxi industry right now, and people keep saying that hard working people make a good living in America. These taxi drivers are hard workers so they should be able to protect their industry in any way they see fit.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

And why can't the taxi drivers use Uber to help them "make a living"? Because they want to overcharge us, the customers. So them protecting their industry is a code for robbing the customers.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

Because the Taxi industry has way more respect and value for its drivers then the Uber industry does. The taxi industry is a holdover from what the economy should value and once did. You think Uber won't overcharge? What IS overcharging anyway?

You think the taxi industry is overcharging because they are forced to provide a guaranteed safe service and need to recover the cost of that? Don't you want a safe service?

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

You have no idea the levels that taxi drivers are held to. Just because you can't see it with your eyes, it doesn't mean it isn't there and protecting you every time you get in a car.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

Regarding the first paragraph - overcharging is charging more than the competition. The stuff about respect for drivers is B.S.
Regarding the second: There's no evidence that taxi service is safer than Uber. Even if it was, I want a freedom to choose. Pay more for supposedly safer service or save money and take alleged risk.
The greedy taxi industry wants to take away that choice. Because they know they have nothing to offer to justify the higher price.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

You will not get the freedom to choose, because the market can only support one or the other. You are basically saying you want a possibly unsafe driver so everyone else should also have an unsafe driver. That's pretty selfish. The very fact that there is regulation is proof that we can only have one or the other. I do not believe any Taxi company charges much more than the other, therefore I guess by your definition they are not overcharging. You are comparing apples to oranges if you are meaning 'the competition' to mean a company that operates with a complete lack of regulation. That is not competition, that is an illegal entry to the market place. I don't believe the entertainment industry should offer their products for free because there is illegal downloading, do you?

I'm also interested to know how you propose to stop Uber from charging as much as taxi service, or more, once Taxi's are forced out of any given locale.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

> the market can only support one or the other.
No
If one entity provides added value for added price it can compete with other, cheaper "budget" entities. That's why Taxis co-existed with more expensive limo service since forever.
>complete lack of regulation
B.S. and you know it. Uber drivers follow the same rules of the road as every other driver on the road. To level the playing field, the outdated and irrelevant rules applicable to the taxi companies should be repealed, not enforced.
> I don't believe the entertainment industry should offer their products for free because there is illegal downloading, do you?
Good example. The entertainment industry is like most industries where I don't need anybody's permission to enter. I can buy a video camera, shoot a movie and try to sell it just like anybody else. 20CenturyFox will not whine and cry that I am stepping on their "industry". Taxis think they are special and get to corner the market. Well, not anymore.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

So the guy on the street can supply me with pain medication for much cheaper than a pharmacy can. Does that mean you should be able to go to the guy on the street? I'm fascinated that you think regulations don't serve a purpose ever.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

I should add, I suppose I should be able to set up a website selling anything I want, illicit drugs perhaps. Screw the people if they don't know they shouldn't use them? What kind of society do you think we will end up living in.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

Then why have government at all?

Let people decide whether it is better for them to rob businesses and rape others or not.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

Wait... who is the third party?

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

Of course we all know that people don't really know what is better for themselves. We make much better choices as a collection then independently. If left to our own devices we would just kill each other. So this is really a pretend conversation, because you are operating with the assumption that we would have a society or a place to live at all without laws in place.

If you don't like the taxi laws, your choice in our free society is to go fight them.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

3d party is somebody not involved in the transaction.

Government has important and legitimate functions such as defense, border control, minting currency, punishing *real* crimes (homicide, rape, larceny etc) and others. All those functions are listed in the constitution.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

Free society.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

So you are saying that, just because there is a law being broken, it is not a 'real' crime. If the law does not benefit you personally it should not exist.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

Robberies and rapes are examples of coerced (lacking free will) interactions.
Why are you being obtuse?

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

And you wish to coerce me into using Uber type services instead of keeping Taxi's viable. Thank you sir.

Re:Well there we go

[MrNJ]

Not sure how your conclusion could've been inferred from anything I written.
It's exactly the opposite, the taxi companies are being anti-competitive. Uber and its clients do not affect you or the taxi industry at all.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

I can't use a sevice that isn't there because you let the bottom drop out of the market. That is as simple as I can put it. Sorry if you don't understand it.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

Oh and one other thing. At the same time, you are also ignoring a LAW man. If you don't like it, our system allows you to fight the law and have it thrown out. There is something to be said for the decision of the people.

I'm not sure if you are young or not, but I certainly see a lot of ignorance of the right way to change things these days.

This will undermine the hard working people that the capitalist system is *supposed* to be *rewarding*.

Re:Well there we go

[fluffernutter]

So you are saying it isn't right that they shut down Silk Road on the Darknet, where you could buy drugs, hits, hacks, you name it. They aren't performing the service, they are only providing the anonymous means to obtain said service. Oh it's a dark world you want us to march into.

Re:Well there we go

[praxis]

In many jurisdictions, Uber drivers are not required by law to accept your destination if it does not please them. A taxi faces consequences if they do that. The playing field is not even and Uber does not follow the same rules.

this is Uber we're discussing

[turkeydance]

which means it isn't surprising.

It's probably too late

[fluffernutter]

Uber is a multibillion dollar company now and therefore will continue to have rights that far exceed not only any person but any national government as well. In the world we made, Uber no longer has to follow laws. Sad that America had a big part in making things this way but the average American will only suffer from it.

Re:It's probably too late

[bkmoore]

Uber is a multibillion dollar company now....

No, Uber has been 'valued' as a multi-billion dollar company by the venture capitalists who are backing them. It has nothing to do with Uber's actual economic activity or the net-worth of their assets and cash. When venture capitalists put a value anything, it really means that is their asking price for that "investment". It has nothing to do with true economic value. I personally am willing to go out on a limb and would value Uber somewhere between my kid brother's lemonade stand (proven profitability) and a decomissioned Russian aircraft carrier (proven scrap value). Exactly where in that range Uber falls, I cannot say. But then again, I'm not a venture capitalist.

Re:It's probably too late

[fluffernutter]

So if they are valued as a multibillion dollar company then they have money to purchase lawyers as if they are a multibillion dollar company. Once that happens it is fairly obvious to me that a company can pretty much operate how they please and short of federal capital offenses can work around any law they want.

Re:It's probably too late

[bkmoore]

So if they are valued as a multibillion dollar company then they have money to purchase lawyers as if they are a multibillion dollar company....

So if they are valued as a multibillion dollar company, they could have a line of credit as if they were a multi-billion dollar company. Agree 100% with the rest of your post.

Re:It's probably too late

[pr0fessor]

Uber already left my state because they were told they had to meet some piddly insurance and a couple other inconsequential requirements.

Re:It's probably too late

[fluffernutter]

Wow line of credit.. that would be the worse negotiation ever.

They are not a ride share service

[plopez]

Remember it is not a rideshare service, but rather a global taxi service with centralized command and control which is more that happy to tell everyone where you went and what you were doing. It basically breaks the "cabbie's code" of privacy. And probably stores your credit card information on a laughably secure server.

Re:Nice...

[plopez]

If you've used it, too late.

Sample mailing

[sinij]

Dear Bob's Wife,

Based on Bob's Uber profile statistics we have determined that he took 7 after-hours rides to the red light district during recent months. Please find attached 10% discount coupon for a ride to lawyer's office.

Sincerely,
Uber's Customer Retention Team.

OK, now...

[MitchDev]

Uber is just trying to kill itself...

"The policy changes also allow for advertising using the rider's contact list: "for example the ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family.""

I'd kill/disown friends/family that served me up this crap.

Re:OK, now...

[Anonymous Coward]

This will not kill Uber, or slow it down in any way. Most people do not care about their privacy online. If they did, Facebook would have sunk a long long time ago.

They might, if facebook starts spamming your contact list with advertisements purporting to come from you.

I've used Uber a fair amount lately, but I won't be going forward. For now I'll use Lyft, and if they go the same route, I'll go back to taking cabs and paying a little extra. Mining my contact list like an eastern-block mafia spammer is a step too far, and I think Uber is going to pay for this with a noticable drop of revinue in their bottom line (and they deserve to).

Good riddence to bad rubbish.

Re:OK, now...

[MitchDev]

Never used Uber, and generally I'll spend the extra couple bucks to rent a car rather than bother with a cab either.

This will come back to bite them in ass, and hard.

No reason they need that information

[sjbe]

It would depend a lot on how it's implemented and how it's to be used. Yeah, it would very much suck if they are just scraping all your contacts and then mass spamming them.

I cannot think of a single legitimate business reason they would need my contact list information. I cannot think of anything they could offer me that I would want that would entice me to share that information with them.

Notice the "If" at the beginning? And it's really no different than any other app that allows you to post/share/sent something to a friend or family member.

That depends heavily on whether it is opt in or opt out and whether it is opt in by default and how hard they push you to opt in. Plus the fact that they are even asking is a bit shady as far as I'm concerned.

Slashdot Media Revises Privacy Policy

[Khyber]

Enjoy your Slashdot Media-tainted SourceForge downloads.

Enjoy your activities being possibly tracked when you download from their sites.

Enjoy assholes raping your privacy for profit.

Re: Slashdot Media Revises Privacy Policy

[Khyber]

Hey, asshole. They usurped an account claiming that it was inactive and abandoned when the fucking source update record says completely fucking otherwise.

Try again when you've got a fucking clue.

Re: Slashdot Media Revises Privacy Policy

[Khyber]

Oh to boot...

SourceForge doesn't actually pay for most of the servers and bandwidth used to serve up their projects and they never have. All of the downloads are hosted on a network of mirrors run by organisations like universities out of the pure goodness of their heart.

I think it's time to have a serious talk with those providers.

This is why we need O/S Level control

[Virtucon]

I'm an Uber and Lyft user. I guess I'll be uninstalling Uber if I can't fully disable this and using Lyft more. I really do wish Google and Apple would get off their asses and let things like individual privilege access into the mainstream, such as being able to deny access to your contact list. For example, you can do this on Cyanogen but not in lollipop. In having this feature any app changes like this can be one 1) opted out or if no opt-out is available 2) deny access to the information these apps want.

Re:This is why we need O/S Level control

[crow]

What's really needed is to have OS-level control of permissions that the apps can't see. If an app is denied access to your contacts, it can see a dummy contact list. If an app is denied Internet access, it thinks the device is simply out of range at the moment. If an app is denied location services, it's told that there's no signal (or optionally given a fixed location that you specify).

Otherwise apps will refuse to function based on the lack of access that they don't really need.

Re:This is why we need O/S Level control

[mjwx]

I really do wish Google and Apple would get off their asses and let things like individual privilege access into the mainstream, such as being able to deny access to your contact list. For example, /p>

Why would they do that?

Remember that both Apple and Google make money by collecting your information and selling it (at least Google gives you some assurance it's anonymised before sale). Why would they want to make it harder to do this.

Performance Art

[CanadianMacFan]

I'm beginning to think that Uber is just a performance art project to see just how big of arseholes a company can become before people leave it.

$commentSubject

[Falos]

> riders will be able to opt out I hate this phrase. I've never read Hitchhiker's Guide (yet) but yeah, let's stick that opt out in a basement. In Madagascar.

Old asshattery in new packaging

[jhantin]

welcome to the internet of things, if you would argue as to what this "ass-hattery" has to do with IoT... then I present to you this "business model"

This form of asshattery is by no means limited to the "Internet of Things", or "Web 2.0", or "Social Media", or any other buzzword you might choose to throw out there. I'm not even certain it's restricted to Internet manifestations, though those are certainly the easiest and most prominent.

To sum up

[rakslice]

I've never used Uber before as I haven't needed a cab anywhere Uber operates. I assumed that I would try it at some point in the future, but now I guess not.

Maybe they'll get enough new customers through friends and family that they don't need customers who don't want theirs to be harassed.