Uber poaches Apple legal counsel to work on privacy issues

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2015
Popular connected transportation service Uber has hired away Apple lawyer Sabrina Ross to work on an internal team focusing on privacy law, according to a report on Wednesday.




At Uber, Ross will work on a team led by Katherine Tassi, the company's managing counsel and former head of data protection at Facebook, reports Re/code.

The publication confirmed Ross' move on Wednesday, saying her new position entails work on privacy concerns, including strategic Uber partnerships, and regulatory policy issues. Ross worked at Apple for a little over one year as the company's privacy counsel before leaving in April.

Uber recently came under fire after it was discovered that employees were capable of monitoring customers' locations in real-time even after a ride transaction was completed. The company has since removed such functionality and is working hard to clamp down on user privacy problems.

Customer location data is key to Uber's appeal as an on-demand transportation service. When a user requests a car through the Uber smartphone app, GPS positioning data is sent out to nearby drivers for quick pickups at the press of a button. Customers can view driver details, including a requested car's position and estimated arrival time.

This isn't the first time Uber made advances to an Apple employee. Last July, Apple reportedly lost a senior engineer from its mapping department.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member

    Why in the hell is it that if somebody goes to work for Apple or leaves Apple for someone else it is poaching? Sounds like someone took an opportunity to maybe better themselves or work closer to home, etc.... AI sez "This isn't the first time Uber made advances to an Apple employee", more likely a head hunter that found some talent to fill a position that was available. Sounds like working in a free market to me.

     

    So why is this poaching?

  • Reply 2 of 24
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,501member
    How about, who gives a rusty frack? Apple legal is massive and talent second to none.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,530member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

     

    Why in the hell is it that if somebody goes to work for Apple or leaves Apple for someone else it is poaching? Sounds like someone took an opportunity to maybe better themselves or work closer to home, etc.... AI sez "This isn't the first time Uber made advances to an Apple employee", more likely a head hunter that found some talent to fill a position that was available. Sounds like working in a free market to me.

     

    So why is this poaching?




    Simple.  Put the word "Apple" into anything, extract an implied intent and you got yourself a headline, even thought its not really anything more than a fart in the wind.



    Not sure how many lawyers Apple employs, but it's gotta be a massive workforce.  A friend of mine is an attorney for Apple and listening to some (public) stories from their perspective makes me think they have an army of them.  Losing one person isn't even a blip on their staff count.



    However, use the word "Poach" and it implies something insidious or doom-and-gloom when used in Apple's context.

  • Reply 4 of 24
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,246member

    She should have went to work for Google instead.

  • Reply 5 of 24
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    She should have went to work for Google instead.
    Begone with that kind of talk ...
    http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000217.htm
  • Reply 6 of 24
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Poaching? Kasper, for writing a headline like that, you should have egg on your face.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post



    Poaching? Kasper, for writing a headline like that, you should have egg on your face.



    I see what you did there!

  • Reply 8 of 24
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    If any company could do with some legal advice, it's Uber.

  • Reply 9 of 24
    y2any2an Posts: 86member
    AI has become inured of saying poached when they mean hired, as it's more sensational. Bad journalism.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,254member
    She should have went to work for Google instead.

    Should have 'went' ...???
  • Reply 11 of 24
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    She should have went to work for Google instead.

    Should have 'went' ...???

    American for 'gone'.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    She should have went to work for Google instead.




    Should have 'went' ...???




    American for 'gone'.



    I disagree. It is ignorant for 'gone'. Please don't imply poor grammar is an 'American' thing -- I've read some goofy sh*t from those speaking the King's English.

  • Reply 13 of 24
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member

    I disagree. It is ignorant for 'gone'. Please don't imply poor grammar is an 'American' thing -- I've read some goofy sh*t from those speaking the King's English.
    Who the hell speaks the King's English?
    I mangle and destroy the Queen's English myself :-)
  • Reply 14 of 24
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    Deleted
  • Reply 15 of 24
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    I disagree. It is ignorant for 'gone'. Please don't imply poor grammar is an 'American' thing -- I've read some goofy sh*t from those speaking the King's English.

    I was letting digitalclips know that's how Americans say it. He lives in the US but if I remember correctly he wasn't born here. And yes we all say some f'd up ish. :lol:
  • Reply 16 of 24
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post



    I disagree. It is ignorant for 'gone'. Please don't imply poor grammar is an 'American' thing -- I've read some goofy sh*t from those speaking the King's English.




    I was letting digitalclips know that's how Americans say it. He lives in the US but if I remember correctly he wasn't born here. And yes we all say some f'd up ish. image



    I guessed that (I actually thought of digitalclips myself) -- apparently my sarcasm didn't come thru (since I blew and didn't type the '¡' @ the end like I pictured it in my brain. The 'Kings English' is a link to a description of a work of the same name that has been superseded by 'Modern English Usage'.

     

    Apologies if I offended anyone. (How's that for dated phrasing? ;) :D). Really didn't intend to offend, I was just poking fun at someones usage of the language. 

  • Reply 17 of 24
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by singularity View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post





    I disagree. It is ignorant for 'gone'. Please don't imply poor grammar is an 'American' thing -- I've read some goofy sh*t from those speaking the King's English.


    Who the hell speaks the King's English?

    I mangle and destroy the Queen's English myself :-)



    So am I to understand that the phrase used in the UK currently is the Queen's English? Would make sense as there has not been a sitting king in the UK in my lifetime. I was referring to the phrase used as the title of a book and historically (in some literature) but english is a dynamic, changing language.

  • Reply 18 of 24
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member

    So am I to understand that the phrase used in the UK currently is the Queen's English? Would make sense as there has not been a sitting king in the UK in my lifetime. I was referring to the phrase used as the title of a book and historically (in some literature) but english is a dynamic, changing language.
    As we have a Queen it is the Queen's English when Charles ascends the throne it will be back to the Kings English.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,254member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    American for 'gone'.

    It's not actually. In any form of English, it is a matter of the tense. 'Went' is part of the verb 'to go' not a different, optional word.

    http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/go.html

    'I went to the shop'

    I have gone to the shop'.

    And so on. It's called conjugation.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    American for 'gone'.

    It's not actually. In any form of English, it is a matter of the tense. 'Went' is part of the verb 'to go' not a different, optional word.

    http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/go.html

    'I went to the shop'

    I have gone to the shop'.

    And so on. It's called conjugation.

    I often use went in place of gone, and most people I speak with do so as well. If this forum was only Americans the OP's use of it would have probably gone unchallenged.
Sign In or Register to comment.