Mente, comunicazione e algoritmi. Come cambiano norme e valori, su cui si giocano sfide legali ed economiche.
Una “storia critica” delle grandi piattaforme del web e delle relazioni sociali nella cultura della connettività

Sono dei monopoli; sono troppo grossi, guadagnano vendendo i nostri dati; non pagano tasse; minacciano la democrazia; alterano le personalità: i social media sono sotto il tiro incrociato di politici e sociologhi. Eppure i social media, intesi come il gruppo di applicazioni basate su Internet, hanno formato la struttura online sulla quale la gente organizza le proprie vite. Originariamente ad attirare gli utenti fu il desiderio di essere connessi; la crescente richiesta di connettibilità attirò le imprese, interessate a fornire connettività. In pochi anni si passa da una cultura della partecipazione a una “cultura della connettività”: è questo il quadro concettuale in cui José Van Dijck inserisce la sua “storia critica dei social media” (The Culture of Connectivity, Oxford University Press)passaggio ineludibile se si vuol capire le tensioni nell’ecosistema in cui operano le grandi piattaforme e gruppi sterminati di persone. Anzi connective media invece di social media: perché l’essere social è il risultato di un input umano che diventa output digitale e viceversa, in un costrutto sociotecnologico di cui è difficile separare i componenti.

leggi il resto ›

von Reinhard Müller

Zerschlagt Google? In der unverbindlichen Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments mag Vieles zusammenkommen: vom Antiamerikanismus über den Lobbyismus bis zum Unbehagen über neue Technologien in einer sich schnell verändernden Welt.

Aber dass die Macht des amerikanischen Konzerns, der viel mehr ist als eine exzellente Suchmaschine, ein Thema für die Politik ist, sollte auch jenseits des Atlantiks jedem klar sein. Die Kontrolle allzu großer Marktmacht ist selbstverständlicher Teil jeder marktwirtschaftlichen Ordnung: nicht um Erfolg zu bestrafen, sondern fairen Wettbewerb zu ermöglichen. Da geht es etwa um den Vorwurf, Google manipuliere Suchergebnisse zugunsten seiner eigenen Dienstleister.

Die wahre Macht von Giganten wie Google und Apple erschließt sich erst auf den zweiten Blick. Die zahllosen Nutzer zahlen mit ihren Daten. Über diese Daten verfügt der Konzern, auch wenn er versichert, mit ihnen keinen Handel zu treiben. Und die Daten sind wertvoll, etwa für die NSA. Über deren Kontrolle wird geredet. Das muss erst recht für Google gelten.

by Tim Bradshaw and Hannah Kuchler

Uber has moved to head off further criticism about how it handles the huge trove of personal data that it holds on its customers’ locations and trips, after facing questions over how its employees access individuals’ information.
Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, sparked controversy this week after he was quoted as saying that the company should consider hiring private investigators to launch a smear campaign against critical journalists.

The comments were first reported by Buzzfeed, which also alleged that an Uber manager had accessed one of its journalist’s customer profiles on the car-hailing service, without her permission.

Other reporters have also voiced concerns that they could be targeted based on their usage of the app.

“Several Uber employees have warned me that Uber execs might look into my travel logs,” said Ellen Cushing, a reporter for San Francisco magazine, who wrote a recent profile of Uber.

In a blogpost, Uber played down those allegations, which could see the company – recently valued at $17bn and currently in talks to raise more than $1bn in new funding – run foul of data protection laws.

“Uber has a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver’s data,” the company said on Tuesday afternoon. “The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes. Our policy has been communicated to all employees and contractors.”

Some examples of “legitimate” uses include responding to customer service inquiries, fraud monitoring and troubleshooting technical bugs, Uber’s blogpost said.

Uber’s privacy policy states that the company “may use your personal information or usage information that we collect about you” for unspecified “internal business purposes” and “inclusion in our data analytics”.

Even after a customer cancels their account, their location and trip history data can be stored “as needed” for legal, security or operational purposes, Uber’s privacy policy says.

Two months ago, attention was drawn to Uber’s ability to zoom in on individual customers’ activity by Peter Sims, a San Francisco-based author and former venture capitalist, who discovered that his Uber ride across Manhattan had been watched simultaneously on a map at a company launch event in Chicago.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a31f6b60-6f8a-11e4-b50f-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3KpA65FRx

ft.com > companies >
Technology
Search
Sign in Register Subscribe

Home World Companies
Energy
Financials
Health
Industrials
Luxury 360
Media
Retail & Consumer
Tech
Telecoms
Transport
By Region
Tools
Markets Global Economy Lex Comment Management Life & Arts
November 19, 2014 2:05 am
Uber tries to head off privacy criticism
Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco and Hannah Kuchler in New York

Uber Technologies Inc. signage stands inside the company’s office©Bloomberg
Uber has moved to head off further criticism about how it handles the huge trove of personal data that it holds on its customers’ locations and trips, after facing questions over how its employees access individuals’ information.
Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, sparked controversy this week after he was quoted as saying that the company should consider hiring private investigators to launch a smear campaign against critical journalists.
More
ON THIS STORY
Lex Startups – Uber and out
John Gapper Uber should just do nothing
Uber seeks boost from Washington recruits
Uber offers perks to US drivers
Uber chief on the defensive over ethics
ON THIS TOPIC
Goldman clients offered debt in Uber
Uber forced to stop operating in Nevada
Uber struggles to get back on right road
Slideshow Uber’s bumpy road
IN TECHNOLOGY
Speaker maker Sonos raises $130m
Twitter tightens anti-abuse measures
Xiaomi invests in Silicon Valley start-up
Hawking warns on rise of the machines
Sign up now

firstFT
FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web
The comments were first reported by Buzzfeed, which also alleged that an Uber manager had accessed one of its journalist’s customer profiles on the car-hailing service, without her permission.
Other reporters have also voiced concerns that they could be targeted based on their usage of the app.
“Several Uber employees have warned me that Uber execs might look into my travel logs,” said Ellen Cushing, a reporter for San Francisco magazine, who wrote a recent profile of Uber.
In a blogpost, Uber played down those allegations, which could see the company – recently valued at $17bn and currently in talks to raise more than $1bn in new funding – run foul of data protection laws.
“Uber has a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver’s data,” the company said on Tuesday afternoon. “The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes. Our policy has been communicated to all employees and contractors.”
Some examples of “legitimate” uses include responding to customer service inquiries, fraud monitoring and troubleshooting technical bugs, Uber’s blogpost said.
Uber’s privacy policy states that the company “may use your personal information or usage information that we collect about you” for unspecified “internal business purposes” and “inclusion in our data analytics”.
Even after a customer cancels their account, their location and trip history data can be stored “as needed” for legal, security or operational purposes, Uber’s privacy policy says.
Two months ago, attention was drawn to Uber’s ability to zoom in on individual customers’ activity by Peter Sims, a San Francisco-based author and former venture capitalist, who discovered that his Uber ride across Manhattan had been watched simultaneously on a map at a company launch event in Chicago.

“I’ve given up on being able to trust the company,” Mr Sims wrote in a widely circulated blogpost this September about the alleged incident, which he said happened in 2011.

Uber has tried to quell growing discontent among some reporters and customers in the aftermath of Mr Michael’s comments, which are just the latest in a string of incidents that has prompted criticism of its corporate ethics.

In an interview with the Financial Times on Tuesday, David Plouffe, Uber’s senior vice-president of policy and strategy, said the company had a “great story to tell” about creating jobs, reducing drink driving and improving cities’ transportation.

“That’s where we need our focus to be in terms of talking about our company,” he said. “The less we get in our own way, the better off we’ll be.”

Nonetheless, some security analysts remain concerned about how Uber stores and uses information on its millions of customers, many of whom use the app several times a month to travel to or from their homes.

Davi Ottenheimer, senior director of trust at EMC, the IT firm, and an expert in encryption, said Uber had a “huge metadata issue” as it could see who moved where and when.

“You don’t realise when you step into that car that they are looking at everything – I mean everything, building profiles of you,” he said. Even though the data are officially “anonymous”, if an Uber user frequently goes to the same address, such as their home or office, they could be identified based on that information, he added.

“I don’t think anybody realises that we’re far away from an app that gives you privacy in a way that taxis give you your privacy,” he said.

Describing the Uber screens that show cars moving around a live map, he said: “They call it the ‘God view’ . . . They think they are God.”

by Tim Bradshaw

Uber’s combative chief Travis Kalanick has had to defend his company’s culture and ethics, after a senior executive at the driver-hailing service said it should consider hiring investigators to probe the “personal lives” of critical journalists.
The comments were made by Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, at a private dinner in New York and reported on Monday by a BuzzFeed journalist who attended the event.

Mr Kalanick called the remarks “terrible” and a “departure from our values” in a series of tweets on Tuesday, saying they did not represent the company.

The incident follows persistent criticism of Uber’s aggressive competitive tactics and use of “surge pricing” to raise fares during periods of high demand.

The latest controversy comes at a crucial time for the San Francisco-based company, as it embarks on its second round of fundraising in six months.

Uber hopes to raise more than $1bn at a valuation likely to exceed the $17bn achieved in its previous fundraising, people familiar with the deal have told the Financial Times.

Mr Michael did not deny the report in BuzzFeed, in which he was quoted as suggesting that Uber might spend “a million dollars” on opposition researchers to find information that might be used to discredit reporters who have criticised its corporate behaviour.

“The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner, borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for, do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach,” Mr Michael said in a statement provided by Uber. “They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”

Another attendee at the dinner, who asked not to be named, broadly confirmed to the Financial Times the exchange between Mr Michael and Ben Smith, BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief, who had earlier put a provocative question to Travis Kalanick, Uber chief executive.

Nairi Hourdajian, Uber’s communications chief, added: “We have not, do not and will not investigate journalists. Those remarks have no basis in the reality of our approach.”

Mr Kalanick said on Twitter on Tuesday that the comments put the “burden” on Uber to show its “constituents” that the company and its employees were “principled and mean well”.

“His remarks showed a lack of leadership, a lack of humanity, and a departure from our values and ideals,” Mr Kalanick said. “We are up to the challenge to show that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community.”

However, Mr Kalanick indicated that Mr Michael would not lose his job over the incident. “I believe that folks who make mistakes can learn from them – myself included,” he said. “And that also goes for Emil.”

Uber has also denied allegations that the company has monitored the journeys made by reporters and other individuals using its service. Such a move would be against its privacy policy, Uber said, and likely be in breach of data protection laws.

Mr Michael’s suggestion of smearing reporters was largely directed at Sarah Lacy, founder and editor-in-chief of tech news site Pando, according to BuzzFeed. Ms Lacy, who has been a prominent critic of Uber and its executives, called his remarks “horrifying”.

Uber is no stranger to controversy, thanks to its regular tussles with regulators and taxi unions, and recent criticism of its tactics for poaching drivers from its main US rival Lyft.

This summer, Mr Kalanick hired David Plouffe, former presidential campaign manager for President Barack Obama, to help him fight what he has styled as a political battle against the taxi industry.

In a recent interview with Vanity Fair magazine, Mr Kalanick admitted to trying to disrupt Lyft’s fundraising efforts earlier this year by warning prospective investors that it planned to raise millions more soon after.

Fred Wilson, tech investor at Union Square Ventures and backer of rival taxi apps Hailo and Sidecar, said the tactic was “unethical and unsavoury”.

Lyft succeeded in raising $250m in April, while Uber went on to raise $1.2bn in June and is now seeking further funds.
But in recent interviews with the FT, Mr Kalanick has said that he feels Uber’s reputation as an aggressive operator is undeserved.

“I don’t subscribe to the idea that the company has an image problem,” Mr Plouffe told Vanity Fair. “I actually think when you are a disrupter you are going to have a lot of people throwing arrows.”