Uber: Hackers stole 57m passengers, drivers' info. We also bribed the thieves $100k to STFU Uber's CEO Dara Khosrowshahi today revealed hackers broke into the ride-hailing app's databases and stole personal information on 57 million passengers and drivers – information including names, email addresses, and phone numbers. And the cyber-thieves made off with 600,000 US driver records that included their license numbers …
Uber has been operating as a criminal enterprise for years, so this revelation is hardly shocking. In my opinion, criminality is so baked into the Uber culture that the first thing required to begin to change it is a complete replacement of the the board of directors and all of upper management. The rot has been there for so long, and is so deep, that it's hard to see how real change is possible without that.
And they've got a new CEO, and he's firing C-level people in an effort to clean house.
Look, I despise Uber as much as the next person. I still take taxis. But for pete's sake, if the company is trying to clean up its act, at least give it credit for what it does.
Otherwise it'll have no incentive to change its ways, because it gets condemned either way.
Fuck Uber.... Annihilation of all competition while ripping everyone's privacy to sheds is their sole and only goal!
~~~
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-four-understanding-that-unregulated-monopoly-was-always-ubers-central-objective.html
~~~
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/15/uber_ftc_settlement/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/20/senator_franken_uber_privacy_probe/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/24/uber_cloaked_its_spying_but_apple_gave_it_a_wrist_slap/
https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/uber-privacy-woes-cautionary-tale/
http://www.firstpost.com/business/android-phone-ubers-new-privacy-policy-will-spook-2269042.html
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/22/epic_uber_ftc/
"What is the purpose of Uber the company if not to screw other people?"
The transfer of wealth from poorer people to richer people. Trickle up economics, in fact.
Poor people getting screwed is incidental. In fact, I doubt it ever occurred to the founders because, for entitled bros, poor people don't really exist until you want the trash taken out. Or cheap drivers.
"And they've got a new CEO, and he's firing C-level people in an effort to clean house."
Neither of which amount to a new board and upper management. I understand that the CEO says he's trying to clean house, and if that's true, then I applaud the effort. However, I don't see how that means that the company should escape criticism, and I don't see how that means the company should be viewed with any less skepticism than before.
If/when Uber manages to become at least a minimally ethical company, I'll praise them for it. But not before.
complete replacement of the the board of directors and all of upper management
Would that be enough? All the mid level managers and even employees have operated in the shadow of the crooks, gropers and idiots. You can have organisations where only the management are corrupt (I've worked for some), but I'd imagine that the "Uber way" has been baked in from its days as a start up. As much as anything else, there's been so much dirt that Uber has kicked over itself, and yet the current employees have acquiesced, and continued to work there. What does that tell us?
IMHO the only solution is to close down Uber as a corporation, and sell the IP to somebody willing to start the business from scratch, using the same platform and consumer offer, but with 100% different people. But I can't see that happening.
The problem runs deeper than just he amoral dipshits running it though. The entire business model is fucked from the start, something rotten and diseased that can only exist by feeding billions into the cash furnace at its heart while trying to hide itself in the cracks between laws and regulations.
They lose something like 40% on every fare, they don't employ people properly and have been found guilty of dicking them over on even the amounts they do pay them. They avoid almost all taxes, don't put anything back into the system in terms of providing standard benefits for the drivers they claim not to employ. Changing the names of the bellends in charge won't fix any of that, and if they do start operating as an actual company, paying taxes and abiding by regulations they'll lose even more money than they are now.
I wouldn't say it's totally fucked as a business model. If it manages to force the taxi companies paying taxes and properly employing their drivers out of business, then Uber becomes a total monopoly and can then jack prices up to take advantage of being a monopoly.
It's certainly rotton and diseased as a company and business model. The biggest surprise is that the people who usually claim to be for protecting the oppressed via worker protections and rules and regulations are actually the biggest supporters of Uber and are loudly agitating to prevent governments from taking action to protect companies playing by the rules.
I wouldn't say it's totally fucked as a business model. If it manages to force the taxi companies paying taxes and properly employing their drivers out of business, then Uber becomes a total monopoly and can then jack prices up to take advantage of being a monopoly.
That's a crappy business model. Forcing taxi companies out of business by hemorrhaging vast sums of cash is pretty stupid and not sustainable. One might think that once they have a monopoly they could raise their fees but they have already slit their own throats. The only reason taxi companies had a monopoly was because of "the rules" and government limiting who could enter the market space by use of the ever precious medallions. Once that government repression is eliminated and the market is wide open and anyone with a car and an app can then enter the market and compete, like Lyft, there can be no monopoly. Monopolies really only thrive when they have government backing which is also why the phone company was a monopoly for such a long time.
Uber's main problem has been that it has been so Machiavellian in how it goes about trying to undercut laws and hinder competitors that it mostly forgot about what the original goal was. It went from providing a service to blindly adopting win at all costs tactics that are ultimately self destructive as we've witnessed in these first stages of collapse. At this point it really needs a hard reboot with a refreshed business plan and a lot of chlorine to sanitize the corporate culture. The question is whether they will succeed in turning it around before investors decide to cut their losses and likewise the flow of cash currently running into the furnace.
"The biggest surprise is that the people who usually claim to be for protecting the oppressed via worker protections and rules and regulations are actually the biggest supporters of Uber"
In BC the Green Party leader has been actively agitating for the gov't to allow Uber. Sensibly, the new NDP gov't has been delaying a decision. One can hope.
"...and yet the current employees have acquiesced, and continued to work there. What does that tell us?"
That these people need a wage to put food on the table, pay the mortgage etc.
Do you really hate Uber so much that you want to punish everyone connected with this rotten organisation? That's unjust and unfair. Like every human organisation there will be good people and bad people working there. It's just that in this instance most of the bad sorts seem to have risen to the top.
Do you really hate Uber so much that you want to punish everyone connected with this rotten organisation?
Yes and Why Not? Is the total destruction of the little people to get at the One Bad Guy at The Top not the holy principle applied to every "regime change" and "humanitarian intervention" since forever!? Why should we treat someone like Uber differently from everyone else we don't like the leadership of?
PS:
The minions still get "food on the table" after Uber is a smoking hole in the ground, only, they have to apply for welfare first!
" Like every human organisation there will be good people and bad people working there."
True, but this isn't an example of some "bad people". This is a bad company, designed to be such from day 1. There comes a point at which good people have to stop ignoring that they're working for such a company and leave it. With Uber, that point was years ago. I really question whether those who stick with the company can be considered "good people" as an absolute term. Not to say they're bad people -- but they are ethically compromised.
That these people need a wage to put food on the table, pay the mortgage etc.
We all choose where we work, nobody comes along with a M16 shouting "Sign THAT", they don't threaten your family if you don't obey.
Uber are scum and anybody still working there "deserves" what is to come. There are plenty of much better places to work for and it does not look like there is a shortage of job positions of various types.
I do feel sorry for the non-employees, though, who work their balls off 24/7 for peanuts driving people around and being ripped off by scum, however, pretty sure there is a market for a competitor ... Uber has really blackened its name ...
"We all choose where we work, nobody comes along with a M16 shouting "Sign THAT", they don't threaten your family if you don't obey."
No, they put price tags and taxes on everything, and no one else is willing to hire you. Ethics start going out the window when you can't put food on the table. Desperation is one of the greatest motivators for turning to crime.
In my opinion, criminality is so baked into the Uber culture that the first thing required to begin to change it is a complete replacement of the the board of directors and all of upper management.
Possibly it should go further down the chain. There's the "shadow of the leader" thing that spreads over time. Seems to be corrupt all the way from the Board to the drives of late.
By definition, yes. The data is in the hands of people it should not be in the hands of.
I understand what you are saying, just as I think you understand what I'm driving at, so could you lay off the pedantry for a moment and consider the actual question?
Yes, the data is theoretically still in the hands of the miscreants as there is no way to be certain they deleted it. However, there is also no data to suggest the purloined information is available to anyone else *other* than them (i.e. it hasn't been sold on the black market that we know of).
So, to re-iterate the question: If Uber hadn't paid them off and the miscreants had sold the info on to other nefarious individuals to exploit, how much better/worse off would those affected be?
And if anyone pedants on that I'll just give you up for a bunch of gummy-bear brains :P
"s I think you understand what I'm driving at"
I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I think I simply don't understand what you were driving at. Are you suggesting that as long as the data isn't passed along to even more criminals, then all is OK? Because that's really what it sounds like.
To answer your question -- obviously, the more criminals who possess the data, the worse everybody is (up to a point, anyway). The point I raise is one of relevance. The data is already in the hands of criminals, so everybody is already harmed. If we assume the data stays just in the hands of the criminals who stole it (and there is literally zero reason to assume that, but let's just say for the sake of argument), the damage is still done.
I'm not suggesting that there is no harm that criminals have possession of this data, I'm suggesting that it would be worse if the information were actually being used to harm those people who are in the dataset.
From a moral point of view, Uber have failed totally here, but from a practical point of view they may have actually done the best thing under the circumstances. That's kind of what I was getting at.
Like most things, it isn't always cut and dried as most people seem prepared to sacrifice principles for the sake of expediency.
Why not? If you know who they are and have the ability to bring charges resulting in serious prison time if they renege on the deal it seems a fairly secure arrangement.
This happens all the time. Muppet commits keys to github, three random people get them, one of those three uses them. Corporate security/legal team contacts that person and asks them to delete what they've found. Usually it's just someone being curious and they're happy to, or already have.
If that person's a bit more ruthless and wants to gouge you for money, well it's probably worth it. Just paying the lawyers and CEO and all the PR people will cost more than Uber paid. It's a far cry from paying up to an anonymous ransomware author using Bitcoin.
Wonder if it might be late enough and in the spirit of El Reg irreverence to misappropriate SS ranks for these individuals....
Copy might read then something like....
"Uberst Gruppen Fuhrer Dara Khosrowshahi today revealed hackers broke into the ride-hailing app's databases....."
and
"Uber Sturm Bann Fuhrer Joe Sullivan ordered that the crooks be paid off, the stolen files erased......"
...Godwin's Law is only breached if bring up the Bohemian Corporal and there's an outside chance they might actually be offended.
1. There was never an SS rank Übersturmbahnführer, with or without umlauts. It's all Ober-whatever, "Ober" meaning "Senior" in this context.
2. If that was an intended part of the joke, I obviously didn't get it.
3. There was, however, a book on the topic of the "Übermensch", namely "Also sprach Zarathustra".
4. It was popular in some Nazi circles.
5. Although actually *reading* it was a bit too much for the average Nazi thug.
6. The book is mostly not about taxi driving.
7. Although there is some stuff about camels in there.
>There was, however, a book on the topic of the "Übermensch", namely "Also sprach Zarathustra".
To be honest you're not selling it all that well - any relation to that amazing Deodato track which was shamelessly ripped off by Sträüss for his 2001 soundtrack?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
