Uber really are the piranhas of the corporate world.
I can't imagine any depth they wouldn't dive to, in order to get a morsel to feed on.
Uber really are the piranhas of the corporate world.
I can't imagine any depth they wouldn't dive to, in order to get a morsel to feed on.
The allegation that driver payouts are manipulated to:
1) Hook new drivers with better than average rates before tapering off 2) Take into account the age/model/value of the vehicle and what payments for it would look like in the market and dole out enough to cover costs but not "too much" that they're getting ahead of other drivers
Totally baseless and sourceless hearsay tho. Still, if true, really plays into the image of "there's no depth they won't go".
Add another: the various platforms talk to each other (or analyze driver movement) in order to manipulate order offerings in such a way as to discourage drivers from taking orders from more than one app at once. One app will wait until the other has confirmed an accepted order before deluging you with their own orders, all taking you in the opposite direction (which makes you late for one or more deliveries, giving cause to terminate your contract).
Source?
Pure anecdata. However, the change from the first two days I multi-apped and made almost 3 times my usual hourly rate, to the following weekend, when
>neither app would send me orders for up to half an hour
>as soon as one had assigned me and order, the other would start sending my multiple per minute
>all of these orders were either comically low-compensation (no tip), a 15-minute-plus drive away from the order I'd just accepted (to areas it had never sent me before), or both
was marked.
From the article: ”aggregate users' data without revealing their identities.”
Also from the article:
> Uber Intelligence will let advertisers securely combine their customer data with Uber's to help surface insights about their audiences, based on what they eat and where they travel.
So the companies have the identities. It sounds like they're going to be learning something about their customers, the question is just how much detail they'll get.
Everything? Ok, everything. Names "anonymmized" (but easily trackable) and the list of addresses. Why not sell it to get money? /s
Over/under on when someone is able to de-aggregate an identity down to an individual user?
I’ve got it on less than 6 months.
6 weeks would be optimistic
how do de-aggregation attacks or whatever you'd call this work?
One of the easiest methods is to find a different data source with overlap and use that to map real people to anonymized lists. Big tech companies find this super easy to do because of all the internal data they already have on everyone
More like 15 minutes.
That's how it starts
Why do you think this makes it better?
You think data tied to individual users isn't any worse? That privacy has no value?
I think they're suggesting that anonymized and potentially aggregated data can still have individual data extracted from it: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/27/new-york-...
What the heck? Where did I say either of those things?
Privacy is very important. That's why I think sharing of customer data - individual or aggregate - is bad.
You asked why someone would think aggregating would make it better.
Aggregating protects privacy when done properly.
It seems pretty obvious to me that sharing individual data is orders of magnitude worse than sharing aggregated data.
If you think they're the same, then you don't seem to value the privacy that aggregation provides.
So what am I misrepresenting about what you said?
I'm tired of false equivalences. One thing that's maybe slightly bad, and another thing that's super-super-bad, aren't equally bad.
And I'm tired of people acting like companies putting on a show of protecting our privacy is doing anything actually helpful. But you're right. I'm wrong and clearly don't care about privacy.
As a completely unrelated aside, I wonder how much social progress is hindered by people alienating people on their own side.
Just don't make false equivalences.
It's easy, just admit the two are not the same and move on. You don't need to get defensive about it. "I wonder" how much social progress is hindered by people making wrong statements and then getting defensive about it? Or by making snarky "completely unrelated" asides?
>Aggregating protects privacy when done properly.
When done properly is going a lot of heavy lifting there. Time and time again it's been found most aggregates are not filtered properly and be deanonymized with eaze.
It's not that one is big bad, and one is little bad, it's the little bad can become big bad with a small amount of work by an attacker/company. Then when you add in zero external third party verification of these company claims, you really don't have any reason to believe them.
> When done properly is going a lot of heavy lifting there.
Not really. There are common practices for it. Yes it hits HN when deanonymization can happen at a well-known company, just like it hits HN when there's a security vulnerability that gets patched at a well-known company.
But "it's the little bad can become big bad" is what's doing the heavy lifting in your argument. No, that's not how it works. There's no universe in which aggregate data can be deanonymized to anywhere close to what all of the individual profiles would be. It's a completely false equivalenace, period.
Whether they know how to best exploit my commercial footprint via anonymous data or personal data, doesn't stop them from exploiting my commercial footprint.
Source: "trust us bro"