Hacker News Reader

Arguments on the basis of "they're a private organization; you have not right to tell them what to do" just don't hold a lot of water in these contexts.

Forcing an organization to do something is a big deal because, unless you are specific about when and what kind of data you can force a private company to disclose, it can be abused. This is why such arguments are important.

But if it wants to operate a business on NYC's streets on a (massive) scale -- well, that's a privilege, not a right.

It actually is not a privilege, it is a right. Conducting business is a First Amendment right. In fact, this is a dangerous argument: if conducting business is a privilege, couldn't the government decide which businesses it likes and it doesn't like? The use of New York's streets is indeed a privilege, but that is already paid for by road taxes - anything more than that is just double dipping.

It's called "rule of law", a concept which Uber has demonstrated considerable difficult in understanding thus far.

Let's leave the attacks out of this - replace Uber with any other company and you have the same set of issues to discuss. Instead, let's just focus on the merits of the idea of government coercion of a private company to release data.

If this data was truly beneficial to the public, couldn't the government buy it from the company through a voluntary transaction, paid for by taxpayers? The company can decide whether or not they wish to sell that information. The only reason a company would refuse to sell anonymized information is if they think the data is important to their competitive success.

> Conducting business is a First Amendment right.

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, but I'm not following your argument here.

The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Furthermore, the framers of the Constitution wrote the Commerce Clause, specifically giving Congress the ability to regulate how businesses conduct themselves (albeit in a limited way).

Do you have a court case in mind that provides more insight here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward comes to mind. It was a landmark case that effectively resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system.

This whole discussion could also call into question the idea of corporate personhood, but that's another can of worms. :)

I don't think anybody is disputing that regulation is allowed and useful, but we should also be questioning all regulation to ensure that the government isn't overreaching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward comes to mind.

An important decision, for sure. Doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, though.

It actually isn't a right legally. You can absolutely have your driver's license taken away and the government has the right to regulate usage in many ways. If you're confused about this, try driving the wrong direction for a lane long enough and see what happens to you.

Conducting business (i.e. running an enterprise) is absolutely a right. Obviously if your business involves breaking the law, the business owners shall be reprimanded, but that's separate from OP's assertion that operating business on NYC's streets is a privilege and not a right.

Using government provided resources, like roads, for your business is not a right. You seem confused, so you should try setting up a stand on fifth avenue without a permit and see how quickly the police remove you.

Try driving the wrong direction for a lane long enough and see what happens to you.

Or, for that matter, setting up a pop-up restaurant in the middle of Central Park somewhere. Because, you know, the foot traffic and all the opportunity.

After all, "conducting business" is your "absolute right", so why not?

Conducting business is a First Amendment right.

That's a pretty peculiar interpretation of the First Amendment, for sure.

By this logic what's stopping government to demand everyone's online history from Facebook or the phone companies? After all government own the airwaves.

As said, it all comes down to the merits of the specific regulations (and implicitly, how they jibe with the constitution and existing legislation).

But as to the principled, absolutist counterargument that was offered: "they're a private organization; you can't tell them what to do! you just can't!" -- well sorry, but that's not how things work.

There's nothing stopping them from doing that. Governments are sovereign, businesses and citizens are not. NYC is owned by the government. If you want access you play by their rules

No offense, but they can and they do get that, routinely. You go to a judge, get a warrant, and you get pretty nearly anything you want. Similarly, there exist licensure and reporting requirements for taxi and hotel companies, for really good reasons (whose car is your wife/daughter/girlfriend getting in at two am? Is there a fire escape in that hotel? Are there bedbugs?), that Uber and AirBnB, among many others, are thus far shirking. For now-- it's only a matter of time.

> But if it wants to operate a business on NYC's streets on a (massive) scale -- well, that's a privilege, not a right. And if they want access to that privilege, they're gonna have to play by the rules as set forth by the city's voters and their elected representatives.

I get that a business doesn't have the same rights as a person, but do we really want to be crafting a maze of one-off rules for every company just because each of them have something special that we don't want to pay them for?

afaik, Uber makes money selling some of this data to municipalities.

But do we really want to be crafting a maze of one-off rules for every company just because each of them have something special that we don't want to pay them for?

I don't know, and won't pretend to know. Again, it all comes down to the merits. One might very well make the case that companies should be compensated for providing data in some cases.

I was objecting solely to the "business rights" aspect some people were bringing up (and which comes up continuously in discussions about regulation and business ethics generally, here) -- which we seem to be roughly on the same page on.