>What safeguards are there so that a grouchy driver or engineer can't use it to mess with their ex? For instance.

Not gonna say it's perfect, but as an engineer at one of these companies I'll say production access is generally very locked down and audited to the point of often being quite an encumbrance to even be able to debug production issues. Very unlikely anyone will be willy-nilly blacklisting drivers over personal vendettas.

The conspiracy theories never end. Next they're going to say there is some 'god view' built into the uber code allowing executives to track and retaliate against journalists that annoy them!

Which...was..proven true:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view...

he was being facetious :)

HN is the best straight man.

It seems like you may be talking about the no-fly list (which I think is controlled by FBI's TSC with some partnership with DHS) while GP may have been talking about NTSB/FAA safety sharing programs.

I suspect NTSB/FAA are much more effective at correcting bad info than no-fly list which is managed by people who like to think they are fighting so much evil the harms of their policies are justified.

I assume there is safeguards. But for the same reason these lists aren't public, their policies aren't either.

Well, I think people tend to assume there were safeguards in place for things like this, too.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041207/1958200.shtml

Doing these things in the dark almost always leads to abuse.

https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:1::::::

(PS: what is going on with all these colons in their urls?)

For URLs like that the answer is usually either "Java" or "Microsoft."

I would imagine there's a review process for allegations already.