| > 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. |
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.