Uber Senior Vice President Emil Michael made a controversial comment Nov 14. According to a Buzzfeed report, Michael said the company, a car service, should collect data on critics of the company to expose their personal lives to the public.
In essence, the company would give the media treatment similar to the level of criticism aimed at Uber.
This should scare you for many reasons. Uber is a car service that is able to collect vast amounts of data on the habits of its customers, which are many — it is worth $18 billion and features services in 46 countries.
By using the car service, you are sending up a large flag saying, “This is where I like to shop. This is where I like to eat. Oh, yes, and this is my girlfriend’s house, and my house is completely empty.”
The compilation of personal information, including current physical location, habits, etc., is not unique to Uber. Taking a glance at any social media site, you would find options to post where you go, when you were there and more.
However, Uber is willing to analyze ridership data, not explicitly voluntarily provided as on Facebook, and use that information for its own ends.
In 2012, an Uber “company official analyzed anonymous ridership data in Washington and several other cities in an attempt to determine the frequency of overnight sexual liaisons by customers,” the results of which were posted on Uber’s blog under the title, “Rides of Glory.”
It’s easy to say, “Well, they keep it anonymous, but there was no harm done.” Maybe, but Uber demonstrated that it is willing to use customer data to determine information that has absolutely no business value to the company.
Even if it was used for legitimate business purposes, it would still likely be a huge breach in customers’ privacy. That it wasn’t used for business purposes makes it much worse.
Michael’s most recent threats were mostly targeted at a female journalist Sarah Lacy, the editor of PandoDaily, who has often criticized Uber on the grounds of sexism.
Whether or not this is true doesn’t really matter because free discourse is based on the ability to argue on the grounds of an issue. It has nothing to do with the issue by going to dig up dirt in somebody’s personal life in an attempt to gain the upper hand.
Further, in a sad attempt to bolster the company’s image, Ashton Kutcher, an investor in Uber, took to Twitter asking what “is so wrong about digging up dirt on shady journalist?”
It is wrong because one, it is an invasion of privacy, and two, the “dirt” has absolutely nothing to do with journalistic reporting. It is a scare tactic, the equivalent of a knife in the back.
Watch out for Uber, folks. It’s willing to fight dirty in the face of criticism, and who knows what that could result in for us.
allenjo@indiana.edu
