Emil michael made at a dinner with journalists. He said uber should dig up dirt on journalists critical of the company like sarah lacy of pando daily. Ubers c. E. O. Later took to twitter and said the comments at a recent dinner were terrible and do not represent the company. His remarks showed a lack of leadership and a lack of humanity and a departure from our values and ideals. But at least one prominent uber investor Ashton Kutcher tweeted what is so wrong about digging up dirt on a shady journalist . I spoke about all of this with sarah lacy, founder and editor of pando daily as well as cory johnson, our editor at large. Take a listen. I first heard about this from ben smith. The story has been really focused to me and travis and emil. Lets not forget, this was said at a table full of journalists. Arianna huffington, michael wolff, people from business insider. One thought this was wrong. One thought this was wrong and wrote a story under intense intimidation, and that was ben smith of buzzfeed. Honestly, when he called me, i was on a business trip in london and i stepped out to talk to him because i have enormous respect for him and i could not imagine what was so important that he needed to talk to me immediately. And i was terrified, and the plan as it was described is not just to dig up dirt. Were not talking about doing a google search. We are talking about a milliondollar budget, a fourtosix staff team to do Opposition Research on me. Thats going through trash. Thats following my kids. That is vans parked outside my house. And the idea was, we are going to go at her through her family. We are going to destroy her through her family, and we are going to do it until she backs down, and no one will ever know that uber did this. And one journalist thought this was wrong. As soon as i heard this, i was terrified. But i also thought, thank god he said it to a real journalist, otherwise he would be doing it and i would have no idea. I want to know how youre feeling right now, because you lost your own personal security. Security at pando. Tell us what youre doing. I dont want to deal with details too much, because the point is for my family to be safe. I have two young kids. Ubers view was, lets hit her at her one vulnerability, her kids, and they succeeded. Im terrified. We have had to totally redo the security at my house. I have personal security with me and my children at all times. Here is the important thing, right now we are in this Media Firestorm about this, but emil michael has not been fired. We see right after travis apologizes publicly in twitter it will go away. There is no Public Record of it. They have their celebrity investor come out and label me as shady. Oh, he backs me away from it, but im now labeled as a shady journalist. Is this really such a bad thing . They are starting to shift the narrative. You can see what travis bragged about at the code conference in may. This is a political campaign. They have hired political operatives. Watch scandal. Watch house of cards. That is what is happening. When this dies down, theres no repercussions. Investors are supporting it. They are going to either go forward with their plan or do something worse. The story i did a warranted one Million DollarsSmear Campaign that warranted destroying my family got nowhere near this amount of press. Got nowhere near this amount of people saying they were going to take the app off their phone. Something bad is going to happen. Do you think emil should be fired . Ken put up a post on twitter. Exactly. I think the bare minimum we can all agree on is that emil michael should be fired. This is a deep problem within the company. As i have been living this horror for the last several days, what strikes me and what has bothered me about uber is whenever we would cover these stories about assault of female passengers and call the company and ask them, they would say she was dressed provocatively. She was drinking. It was the classic blame and shame the woman psychology. Imagine a woman is attacked in an uber in a way that could dent the companys valuation as much as my first article did. She doesnt have the resources of private security. She cant call you guys and get on tv and get her side of the story told. I feel like this is not about me. This is about journalists. This is about women getting in their cars. This is about a Company Culture that thinks it can throw money to destroy peoples lives and families in the name of a greater valuation, and its about every single board member and private investor stepping back and being ok with it. People who have met my kids. People who have been at my house. In 15 years of covering the valley, ive never seen anything like this. You have to wonder if the h. P. Pretexting scandal came out, when journalists phone records were tapped, would there be any outrage . Would Ashton Kutcher be fine with that as well . Digging up dirt on political candidates, this is a known tactic in political campaigns. Emil michael has spent time in washington. David plouffe has a long history in washington. What should someone like David Plouffe be doing to manage this companys reputation and how is it different when it is you and not an aspiring elected official . Look, im not in the political world for a reason. It is incredibly scary. What should he do . It depends on what his goals are. If he wanted uber to be recast as a friendly company, perhaps they should just start changing some of the executives. I dont think you can just put a new ribbon on that. I think it depends on what his goals are. I think, unlike a politician, uber is not running for office. This is a company that we are trusting with our lives. People put their children in ubers to drive them around. Women are getting in ubers very late at night, and yes, sometimes they are dressed provocatively, and sometimes they have had something to drink. Thats why they are calling uber. That doesnt mean they should be victimized. If anyone raises questions, their personal life gets destroyed . This is horrifying. Do you think this was said to a group of journalists, that all of the journalists would disseminate the intimidation, or do you think it was some guy shooting off his mouth . It was not a guy shooting off his mouth. Im confident of that having talked to people at the dinner. He articulated a plan. This was not spur of the moment conversation. It was a plan. I think it was primarily about me. I think i was the first target because im a woman and im high profile and they knew they could go after my kids. It is one of two things. It is either they were putting the journalists on notice or and frankly it would work with a lot of people. They have done other intimidation tactics not this extreme that have worked, or they dont think there is anything wrong with it. What are the plans they wouldnt brag about at a dinner . Thats why i have private security right now. I want to get back the this question of on versus off the record. If both parties understood this was off the record, and who knows what the understanding of either side really was. If you hear something this extreme, do you break that journalistic code . Yes i dont understand. You and i came from the old world of journalism. I dont understand what has happened with online media today. Journalists are confused on where their loyalties lie. They think their loyalty lies to a rich guy that they are covering who is going to lie to them or Say Something horrific and illegal the damages someones family security off the record, and that trumps that responsibility to the reader. I want to be very clear to any source of mine listening to this, my responsibility is to my readers. Sarah lacy, founder of pandodaily and our editor at large, cory johnson. Lacy says she has no evidence uber actually targeted her. Bloomberg west has reached out to uber for comment. They have chosen not to provide executives for interviews but have given us statements instead. Up next, more on uber. Ill be speaking with minnesota senator al franken, who has written a letter to the company demanding answers on the companys privacy policy. Welcome back to the best of bloomberg west. Im emily chang. Uber isnt taking these tracking allegations lightly. The company has hired attorney Harry Pearson to review the companys privacy policies. Meantime uber has caught the eye of washington with senator al franken demanding answers on ubers privacy policy. Cory and i spoke with franken and started by asking what should happen to emil michael. It felt like what he was doing was trying to have a Chilling Effect on journalists who would write critically about uber, and i dont think thats appropriate. I was wondering whether uber was taking any disciplinary action with him or not. I guess that is up to uber. To that point, you mentioned it raises a number of issues. The Chilling Effect certainly one of them. What are the other big issues you think it raises . Im chairman of the subcommittee and Judiciary Committee on Privacy Technology and the law. This is just a basic privacy issue about an individuals right to control who takes privacy information like geolocation. Thats what were talking about here. That has been a lot of focus of mine and how that information is accessed and shared. It appears they have something called gods view at uber where employees of uber can access geolocation information. It is not clear what purpose it is used for. They say business purposes. I ask them to define that, but they had an incident where an executive from uber had a journalist come to interview him at his office and he told her he had been tracking her there and evidently that speaks to a certain and he did not seem to think there was a problem with that . Amazing. That kind of speaks to a certain cluelessness for a company that evidently stores your geolocation information and it is a little disturbing to say hey, journalists who have come to my office, i have tracked you here. That suggests a little tone deafness. Senator, do you use uber or have you ever used it . I have. I have used uber. Will you continue to use it . Im going to wait for the answers you know, actually when i used uber, it is because my wife uses uber. So it is usually like how are we getting there . Youre getting in the car that is coming. But if you dont get the answers that you like, will you continue to use it . I really have to i wont rule out ever using uber. I wont do that today right now. In other words, frannie is going to kill you if you cant take the uber ride. It is an interesting thing. They are a dominant business. This is i think this might be a wakeup call for them given that the executive told the journalist ive been tracking you on the way over here. It may wake them up a little bit and understand what they, you know, what the proper use of that geolocation information is. And how it is an issue to people. We spoke with al franken about Net Neutrality as well. He is one of the senates most vocal supporters of protecting the open internet. Here is part of that conversation. Basically what Net Neutrality has been about is allowing everyones content to flow essentially to the consumer at the same speed. Now the i. S. P. s, the Big Internet Service Providers like comcast, like Time Warner Cable and verizon have talked about charging extra for a fast lane so there would be a twotiered system or multitiered system where a content provider would have to pay more for fast speed, and that would affect every business, it will cost consumers more because that cost will be passed on to you. All of the innovation that has taken place on the internet has happened not just while we have had Net Neutrality but because we have Net Neutrality. I used youtube as an example. Before youtube, there was google video, which was not very good. Three guys started youtube over a pizzeria in san mateo, california. It was better because it flowed at the same speed, and everyone was able to sample youtube and see it was better, so they chose that. A few years later, google and up buying youtube for 1. 6 billion. Facebook was started in a dorm room. All of this innovation has happened because of Net Neutrality, and we dont want to put everything in the hands of deeppocketed corporations who can afford to pay out for the fast lane and stifle all the innovation that would happen from the startups and from people in dorm rooms. And also just businesses that are operating, have a website, this affects the entire economy and it is a bad idea. Right. It obviously has First Amendment implications as well. Senator, lets talk about those companies. Do they have a moral responsibility in the Net Neutrality debate . I think they do. The internet was created by the defense department, by the United States government. They cannot act as gatekeepers. They dont own it. They dont own it. I believe yes, the point of the internet is not for comcast and verizon and Time Warner Cable to make as much money as possible. It has other purposes. Senator al franken, democrat from minnesota there. Up next, well get a different take on Net Neutrality. Well be speaking with michael powell, the former f. C. C. Chairman, now head of the nations Top Lobbying Group for Cable Companies. Welcome back to the best of bloomberg west. Im emily chang. For a different perspective on Net Neutrality and other key issues, our editoratlarge cory johnson spoke with michael powell, the former chairman of the f. C. C. , now president and c. E. O. Of the National Cable and telecommunications association, the principle lobbying group for the cable tv industry. You should always be concerned to make sure your government is operating ethically and appropriately. I think it is a legitimate question. I think it gets overstated by simplistic looks. I left the f. C. C. For six years before i ever entertained a job in the industry. I had not only an ethical obligation, but a personal choice not to do any work for companies i regulated for many decades. Im a policy expert. I spent my life and career in the communications sector. It is pretty legitimate to ultimately have employment in that sector. Is the policy so complicated when the f. C. C. Is looking for someone, they have to go to tom wheeler, someone who has been paid so much money, whatever that is, by the industry . You to ask the president of the United States what goes into his choice for which he chooses as chairman. I would much rather talk to you. Tom wheeler was in the trade business 30 years ago. Is there a statute of limitations when you can return to Public Service . I think the country needs qualified, talented indepth public servants. I think the president was looking for someone who had that background. He was widely heralded when the selection was made as somebody who had a deep understanding. I would argue yes, it is pretty complicated. Talk to me about the membership companies. What they want, Companies Like comcast, Time Warner Cable, what do they want in particular out of this ruling for Net Neutrality . Our membership is pretty diverse. We have not only operators, Companies Like comcast, time warner and charter. We represent all of the content Companies Like viacom, disney and fox. In terms of revenue, who is giving you most of the money . Is most of the money from one side of that . Our dues are rated by subscription and size. It is obvious bigger members pay a disproportionate amount of the dues. It is well spread across the membership. I dont think that alone buys you direct influence over the choices the association makes. I would be the first to confess, yes, we lobby. We manage an enormous amount for the industry. We manage the industrys trade show. We manage the industrys development of public policy. We represent the industry like im doing today in the media. We sometimes are doing the legal work for filings at the federal Communication Commission or other arms of the government. I spend very, very little time on the hill in direct contact with members. That is not a big part of what i do in my job. In this issue comcast and Net Neutrality. They gave a statement. They say we continue to believe that section 706 as opposed to title 2, and well get to that, provides more than ample authority to impose rules. Comcast and Cable Companies along with the telecos have lead the broadband revolution. There is this big debate. Title 2, which would make a public utility out of the companies that give us our internet, whether were businesses or consumers, versus the existing regulations. What do you think . I think it is a perfect example where the means start confusing the end. I have never seen an issue where there is such violent agreement on the core objectives. Everybody wants to stop blocking. Everybody wants to prevent throttling. Most of our companies have said they have no interest in paid prioritization, and in fact for 20 years, they have not engaged in practice even a handful of times that the commission can point to and everybody is in support of increased transparency. Then you get into the legal minutia about the most effective way to do that. Thats when you get to this debate. Title 1 with light regulation and title 2 with heavy regulation and wheelers plan is kind of in between . Yeah, in some ways, title 2, our greatest concern is the is not so much but the core Net Neutrality obligations, it is the unintended consequences of what else comes with it. Title 2 is a body of regulations m