[dllthomas]

To be clear, in this case I think it's quite unlikely, specifically, that Uber is looking for information with an intent to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.

> They previously (and probably illegally) hired a private intelligence firm to dig up dirt on their opponents in a court battle

What was done there seems obviously inappropriate. It's unclear to what degree the intent was (I certainly understand wanting context). The situation was obviously very different.

> They did the same to intimidate journalists

Maybe. On the other hand: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-campbell/what-was-said-... And even in the Ben Smith's account they didn't actually do it.

[alphonsegaston]

Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? You're entitled to think whatever you want, but you can't in good faith argue that this isn't their pattern of behavior. You're right that the circumstances are different, but the only constant is Uber underhandedly going after anyone who criticizes them.

And an editorial in HuffPo from someone who pals around with the person engaging in the abusive behaviour is a pretty weak defense. Especially since they did a similar thing before:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/19/uber-inve...

[dllthomas]

> Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past?

They've dug up dirt on ex employees making public accusations like this? I haven't seen any claims to that effect. As I said, I think it's unlikely because I don't think the people involved are that evil, and I am confident that they are not that stupid. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be loud about it and I'll be working some place else.

> And an editorial in HuffPo from someone who pals around with the person engaging in the abusive behaviour is a pretty weak defense.

It's not decisive. I didn't present it as such. It's still the case that even the original source describes someone in a role that doesn't deal with the press ranting about how Uber could do something. Even if we take it on face value that's a far cry from establishing that they did it, as was your assertion.

> Especially since they did a similar thing before:

This is the first I've heard of that event. Obviously, that's an inappropriate use of PII, at least. It's entirely unclear from the article whether the list "sent to make a point" was meant as a threat of disclosure or to point at some specific discrepancy between the data and the reporting. The former would be similar. The latter, a different issue.

[alphonsegaston]

So despite having spied on anyone who caught their fancy in the past-

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/13/uber-empl...

-your bar for skepticism/reproach is only cleared with proof that they've done the exact same thing before, telegraphing their intentions along the way?

Ok.

[dllthomas]

That article alleges poor controls around customer data, not coordinated action. It seems unrelated to what we were discussing, which was likelihood of Uber to - reusing my earlier phrasing - try to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.

[alphonsegaston]

Well, you should still probably quit because they already send thugs to intimidate women/former employees in the way you said was unacceptable:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...

[dllthomas]

There's some clear differences, and it's alleged not confirmed. That said, I'll look into it.