So the point is moot for telecom carriers because the regulator already swept in. The point is still important to make concerning ongoing practices in unregulated markets, like big data in tech.
If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces.
The point, as I see it, is that your data is never really safe. I don't much care if Uber can be trusted or not, when the State can always step in and hoover up whatever data Uber has.
If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces.
As long as the State can't be trusted, the rest is moot.
I guess the analogy I'd use would be this: worrying about Uber in the era of rampant warrant-less nation-state surveillance is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Suggesting that the threat posed by Uber and by the government are just different points on the same scale is wrong. They're entirely different problems, and they'll need different solutions.
Respect for privacy has to become the normal situation. You can't say what does it matter if the other party does it way worse? No, they both need to step up. Even if it wouldn't make much practical difference if Uber just deleted their databases tomorrow while the NSA goes about their merry nefarious ways, it's also a battle of the public mind. The public doesn't care a lot, in a very large part because they just feel powerless about it, that they have no choice (and people really tend to come up with the stupidest arguments for the status quo if they feel powerless about it). Best way to make people care again (which is a small step towards getting our governments to stop giving our data to the NSA) is to draw a very clear line in the sand, NO you will respect our privacy, even if you're smaller than the big guys, it's not gonna happen, not on my watch.
It's not like people in war-torn areas stopped caring about muggers and looters just because the US army is killing women and children way more effectively using drone-strikes and misinformed soldiers all hyped up on a mission to kill terrrists (oops). No it's wrong and it shouldn't happen.
My opinion is, the data shouldn't be there in the first place. We can't protect it well enough. Especially not from future people who might legally come into possession of this data. Like in the US, privacy statements apparently mean nothing if a company or startup goes bankrupt and its assets are sold to third parties. They don't buy the obligations. This happened to Radioshack a few years ago, IIRC.
Data is the new radioactive waste.