Slashdot Mirror
Uber Is Under Investigation By Multiple States Over a 2016 Data Breach (recode.net)
Yesterday, it was reported that Uber concealed a massive cyberattack that exposed 57 million people's data. Recode reports that at least five states -- Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York and Connecticut -- would investigate the matter. From the report: Meanwhile, Uber must contend with the possible threat of a new probe at the Federal Trade Commission. The agency, which acts as the U.S. government's top privacy and security watchdog, penalized Uber for its privacy and security practices just this August. But it may not have known that Uber had suffered a major security breach in 2016, even as they investigated the company at the same time for other, unrelated security missteps. For now, the agency merely said it's "closely evaluating the serious issues raised." And some affected customers are similarly taking action. On Wednesday -- hours after the breach became public -- an Uber user filed a lawsuit accusing the company of negligence and deceptive business practices. The plaintiff, Alejandro Flores, is seeking to represent a class of affected riders and drivers alike.
For one thing, 48 states maintain some version of a law that requires companies that suffer a data breach to communicate what happened to consumers. In most cases, companies must disclose a security incident if hackers steal very sensitive customer data -- such as driver's license numbers, which happened with Uber in late 2016. To that end, the attorneys general in Illinois, Connecticut and New York have said they are probing the breach at Uber -- perhaps with an eye on whether the company skirted state laws. The top prosecutors in other major states, like Pennsylvania and Florida, did not immediately respond to emails on Wednesday seeking comment. California's AG declined to comment.
For one thing, 48 states maintain some version of a law that requires companies that suffer a data breach to communicate what happened to consumers. In most cases, companies must disclose a security incident if hackers steal very sensitive customer data -- such as driver's license numbers, which happened with Uber in late 2016. To that end, the attorneys general in Illinois, Connecticut and New York have said they are probing the breach at Uber -- perhaps with an eye on whether the company skirted state laws. The top prosecutors in other major states, like Pennsylvania and Florida, did not immediately respond to emails on Wednesday seeking comment. California's AG declined to comment.
The so-called "gig economy" is nothing more than a way for rich corporate thugs to disenfranchise people and pay them fuck all.
What's wrong with actual physical work. Here in south Texas, a man can make a killing with a couple of lawnmowers, a weed eater, and a blower. Case in point... I personally know two men who cut grass for a living. I've spoken with both at length and used one man's services. People in most of Texas cut grass for 9-10 months a year.
- Average lawn cost: $50
- Average lawns cut a day: 10
- Average days worked: 5
- Average week gross: 2500
- Average month gross: 10000
- Average month net after business bills and taxes: 7000
$7000 a month is not bad coin for simple work like mowing lawns. It's not glamorous, but it's honest, noble work. It cannot be outsourced, it's steady work, and there are not enough people willing to do this and similar work. It's good for the body, soul, and not regulated by fanciful asshats in office. Lots of cash in the lawn business.
No one?
Is there anyone actually responsible for data hacks? (also, see Equifax)
Keep your homosexuality and feminism in the closet where they belong.
Is that your secret? (Pun actually not intended...)
As you pointed out, opportunities certainly exist for anyone who wants to be their own boss and who puts forth the effort. I've known multiple people who did well in lawn care, mostly people with criminal records who had difficulty finding traditional jobs right away.
There is also a place for gigs, but you have to be careful using them to replace a traditional job as a long-term thing. Lack of benefits like health insurance and double taxation mean any contractor work has to pay a lot more on paper in order to be worth as much making the same nominal dollar figure. Where they probably fit in better is when someone is in-between jobs for a month, when you want to make a few extra dollars for a special purchase, etc.
The original pitch of Uber was ride-sharing. If you're already commuting to work every day anyway, you may as well split expenses with someone else who is also going downtown. That is, you'd pick up a few extra dollars sharing the commute, basically letting the passenger pay what the gas and tire wear costs. That makes sense. It's not a job, it's a way to make an extra $10-$20 / day on your way to work. You can use it that way. Uber doesn't say it's supposed to be a full-time job, because it's not good as a full-time job.
As an example, a week ago I found out that I was going to miss a week of pay this month. That kinda throw a wrench in the budget a little bit. I also have the week off of work. So I wouldn't mind doing a gig this week. It would put my income back where it normally is so I don't have to juggle things.
In my case, I have 20 years of experience in IT security and programming, so ideally I'd do a project that uses that experience, but that's not the point. In fact, a former coworker contacted me a while back about possibly doing a small project for the organization I used to work for, a gig, so I'll give him a call.
My refusal to support illegal Ponzi schemes continues to pay off.
As they're losing money on every fare, you're only delaying the inevitable by not using them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Do you have any source for that assertion, that "most" salaried employees have such conditions?
My own experience has been that the employment agreement has said I won't work for a COMPETING firm while working for them. The reasoning there was obvious. At my last job, it was very common for salaried employees to have a side gig, often a little company they owned. For example, one programmer ran a lawn-care business.
At my current job, the non-compete clause was problematic because I still owned a company* that was in roughly the same industry, though I wasn't actively involved in day-to-day operations. We negotiated a bit and changed it to say I would continue to own the other company, but not provide them with any information I learned at my new company. We also discussed saying I would sell the other company within 1 year. I don't recall if that ended up in the final contract or not.
HIDING anything significant, including significant outside employment, from your boss and the rest of the company could of course damage trust.
I forgot the footnote about "owning" the competing company. That company was an S Corp, so technically I owned all the *stock* in the company. It wasn't a sole proprietorship, which is sometimes implied when someone says they own a company. I owned 100% of the stock of the corporation.