I grandi fornitori di servizi on line hanno modelli di funzionamento strutturalmente diversi dalle imprese tradizionali, non riconoscerlo porta a commettere errori: ci possono incappare le aziende stesse o i legislatori. Come insegnano due casi recenti. Uber, l’azienda fondata da Travis Kalanik, continua a espandersi, vincendo, città dopo città, la resistenza dei tassisti che temono di perdere il valore della licenza pagata a caro prezzo. Con quella licenza il Comune concede al tassista di operare in un mercato a numero di operatori contingentato e di offrire al cliente la garanzia pubblica che il servizio sarà di buon livello e soprattutto sicuro. Uber disintermedia il servizio taxi: nessun controllo comunale sul numero degli operatori, ma anche nessuna garanzia pubblica per la sicurezza del cliente. Alla fine della corsa si può dare un voto, il cliente sul conducente e il conducente sul cliente. Ma il conducente rischia di più, se finisce nella lista nera, ha finito di lavorare: un’asimmetria informativa di cui un cliente disonesto potrebbe approfittare.

leggi il resto ›

Intervista di Matteo Rigamonti

«Le riforme strutturali veramente utili a rilanciare la ripresa, ma soprattutto a “costo zero” per la collettività, sono le liberalizzazioni». Ne è convinto Carlo Stagnaro, coordinatore del gruppo di lavoro dell’Istituto Bruno Leoni che ha curato l’Indice delle liberalizzazioni 2014, presentato a Roma giovedì scorso alla presenza del ministro dello Sviluppo economico Federica Guidi. «Ciò che emerge con chiarezza dallo studio è che l’Italia non è certo tra i primi paesi d’Europa per grado di apertura alla concorrenza», spiega Stagnaro a tempi.it, «ma quel che è più preoccupante è che ciò avviene contemporaneamente al fatto che siamo, forse, il paese che sta facendo più fatica tra tutti quelli dell’Unione Europea a uscire dalla crisi; ciò a motivo di una somma di ragioni e di ritardi, di cui la scarsa concorrenza non è che uno tra i tanti».

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.”

Jean-Claude Juncker has not had an easy start as European Commission president. When he was nominated five months ago, a handful of EU leaders raised questions about the ability of the former Luxembourg prime minister to meet the demand of many Europeans that the EU must change. Now he is being forced to fend off criticism over the way the Grand Duchy became a tax haven for leading multinationals during his long tenure as its premier and finance minister.
Luxembourg’s status as a tax shelter may not be news. But Mr Juncker’s role in the Grand Duchy’s tax dealings has been thrust into the spotlight following the leaking of a trove of documents revealing special tax arrangements between Luxembourg and 340 multinationals, including Pepsi, Ikea and JPMorgan. The files show how secret deals with Luxembourg between 2002 and 2010 saved these companies from paying billions of dollars in tax in countries where they do business.

These disclosures come at an embarrassing time for Mr Juncker. Across the EU, there is public indignation at the way multinationals have shuffled profits across borders to avoid paying tax. In the year before he took office, the commission responded by launching probes into companies suspected of benefiting from such arrangements – including at least two in Luxembourg, Amazon and Fiat’s financial arm.
Last weekend’s G20 summit highlighted the awkwardness of the situation. In Brisbane, Mr Juncker endorsed plans to crack down on multinational tax avoidance – including the introduction of transparency measures that he spent years blocking within the EU while running Luxembourg. The incongruity led one NGO to quip that putting him in charge of efforts to combat tax avoidance was like placing Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
Mr Juncker has been damaged by the scale of tax avoidance on his watch. These wounds need not be mortal. The commission president acknowledges that he was “politically responsible for what happened in each and every corner” of Luxembourg when premier. But he also insists that the tax authorities in the Grand Duchy were “autonomous.” No “smoking gun” has yet been produced showing he broke EU law.
Still, Mr Juncker must act to restore public confidence. As commission president, he oversees the officials investigating the tax incentives that Luxembourg offered to Amazon and Fiat. Their inquiries are examining whether those companies effectively received a form of illegal state aid.
Although Mr Juncker says he will allow these inquests to continue without hindrance under the new competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, he has so far refused to recuse himself formally from participating in the commission’s final judgments. Mr Juncker should think again. He should make a clean break and officially hand over all oversight for the probes to Frans Timmermans, his deputy.
Mr Juncker should also step back from involving himself as far as possible in policy discussions on tax transparency. The commissioner in charge of these matters is France’s Pierre Moscovici. Mr Juncker should let him take the lead on all matters relating to tax, including in forums such as the G20.
Mr Juncker has more than enough to do. He is leading a vital initiative to boost investment in the EU’s struggling economy. He needs time to settle into the job. Nonetheless, he should acknowledge Luxembourg’s increasingly toxic reputation within the EU for tax avoidance. Mr Juncker would enhance his authority if he were to put himself at arm’s length from the commission’s activities in this field.

Centinaia di imprese coinvolte, multinazionali per giunta, tasse evase nella sola Germania per 30 miliardi l’anno: la notizia è già da prima pagina. Se poi il paradiso fiscale non è tra le palme dei Caraibi ma negli austeri palazzi del Lussemburgo, di cui presidente del Consiglio e ministro delle Finanze è stato per 15 anni Jean-Claude Juncker, il primo presidente della Commissione europea a essere votato dal Parlamento di Strasburgo, il fatto è politico e potenzialmente esplosivo.

leggi il resto ›