Uber Security Covered Massive Breach, Bribed Hackers With $100k

November 22, 2017

WRITER

What happened?

Uber fired its chief security officer and another employee this week following a huge data breach the ride-sharing company has been hiding for a year. Former head of security Joe Sullivan reportedly led the response to the hack, which happened when two attackers tapped Uber employees’ Github and Amazon Web Services information to steal a trove of rider and driver data. The company’s “solution” was not to report the breach properly and to give the hackers $100,000 purportedly in exchange for deleting the data.

Privacy vs. Technology: Which Would You Choose?

How bad is it?

The hackers stole information about 57 million customers and drivers, including around 600,000 driver’s license numbers. The hacked data included names, email addresses and phone numbers, but Uber says the hack didn’t get Social Security numbers, credit cards or data about your location during trips.

Seems like a mess.

Uber has been here before. The company was hacked in 2014 and fined $20,000 for failing to disclose the security leak. While negotiating with the feds for a privacy settlement, Uber was simultaneously trying to pay $100K to hackers in exchange for deleting info about 57 million people.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: What would you do if you ran Uber? How would you handle the news that hackers got the personal information on 57 million customers and employees? What would you do if you were an investor in the company and you had discovered that managers hid that breach from the public, including those people who had their information stolen, customers, employees?

Think about that a moment. You ran the place. How would you handle that? How would you have handled it before, when you just found out about the hack? How would you handle it now after you found out that people tried to cover it up?

Hi there, it's Doc Thompson. I'm in for Glenn today. There's a specific reason why I'm asking you how you would handle it. And I'll open up the phone lines in a couple of minutes. 888-727-BECK. I'll also check out some of the tweets you sent to the program.

It's @DocThompsonshow. But there's a specific reason I really want to get your thoughts on this. Challenge yourself for a moment. What would you do if you ran Uber? Now, you're probably thinking to yourself, well, I wouldn't let it get to this point.

Let me explain what happened. Let me give you the details. And I challenge you to challenge yourself and come up with an answer in your own head, maybe share it with somebody that's next to you right now. Discuss it with them. And there's a reason I'm asking, that I'll get to in a moment.

Let me give you the details. More than a year ago, hackers got access to Uber's database. And they stole the personal information of about 50 million Uber users. If you used Uber, it may have been you. Name, email addresses, phone numbers. This is what they say they got access to. 50 million users.

And they got personal information of about 7 million Uber drivers. That includes about 600,000 driver's licenses.

So if you're a driver, you may have gotten that information that way, including your driver's license and number. Now, they claim that no Social Security numbers were breached. No credit cards were breached. They didn't get that information. But come on.

Come on. They got all that other stuff. Can we really believe them, knowing that for a year, they didn't tell anyone about this? Even the people affected. Isn't that a moral breakdown, if not a legal breakdown? I would think so. Is it right that they wouldn't tell the people affected by it?

Now, I know why. They're trying to protect the company. And I can respect that on a certain level. But don't you care about your customers. I'm not blaming you for the breach. There could have been problems. Maybe you did everything you could. Through no fault of your own. There was no failure of security. But they got the information. Not blaming you for that. I'm blaming you for the cover-up and why you didn't share it. I understand protecting the company.

What would you do if you were an investor right now in that company? Because as an investor, it's your company. You run that company. You own it. Yeah, there's managers. CEOs. CFOs. Different, you know, people that run it on a daily basis. But you own the company. Ultimately, the buck stops with you and the other investors. What would you you do if you ran the company?

Uber even said they had a legal obligation to report the hack to regulators and to the drivers whose information was stolen. But they didn't.

They didn't do it. In fact, when this breach happened, Uber was at the time negotiating with federal regulators about other privacy violation.

So they knew of this. It was on their front burner. This is what they were dealing with. Then suddenly the breach happens. And they start covering it up. Uber paid other hackers to delete the data and keep the breach quiet, just to cover it up. What would you do now, knowing that, if you were an investor?

The new CEO, Dara (sound effect), pretty sure that's how you pronounce her name, she said, none of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it. We're changing the way we do business.

Good. I'd like some details. But good, good.

She said, at the time of the incident, we took immediate steps to secure the data and shut down further unauthorized access. Good, good.

Good. That sounds great. But what specifically are you going to do moving forward? And who will be punished? See, as an investor, if you owned, even in part, that company, I would want people held accountable, if there were things done wrong.

Obviously, the cover-up, that was wrong. I would want specific, real examples. I want a definitive plan of what you're going to do moving forward to make sure that doesn't happen again, right? Is that what you would want?

Would you want people to be held accountable, and you want to know specifically what will change in the future? That's what I would want too.

The reason I asked that is because you may not be an owner of Uber. You may not own stock. But you do own the Veterans Administration. You and I own it.

We're American citizens. We have a contractural and moral obligation to do what we said we would do, and that is to care for veterans. And I bring that up because the Veterans Administration has failed far more. And continues to fail far more than Uber ever has.

The Veterans Administration exposed millions of veterans' information, repeatedly. Over and over again, over the last 15 years or so. They have done virtually what Uber did.

Again, they were hacked. The information. At one point, there was a database stolen. Over and over again, the Veterans Administration has been sloppy. Uber may not have even been sloppy with it. The way theirs was breached, two hackers got access to a coding site. So maybe they were sloppy or not, but the Veterans Administration has been sloppy. You own that company. So if you said what I would do if an owner of Uber, I would make sure that people were held accountable and I would want a plan for the future. Who has been held accountable? What is the plan for the future?

Over and over again, the Veterans Administration has failed us. But it's far worse than breaching private information. There's a new inspector general report this morning about the Veterans Administration.

And it confirms, among other things, that the Veterans Administration facility in Denver has been lying about wait times that track mental health care.

How many times do we have to read about this, as the owners, the people, who are ultimately in charge of saying what is right and wrong within our government? How many times do we have to hear about these stories, before we actually hold people accountable? And before we actually get a working plan for the future?

This has happened over and over again. Most recently, a former VA employee, by the name of Brian Smother claimed that the staff in Denver kept separate lists. The same thing that we had.

KRIS: We've heard that before.

DOC: Over and over again. Kris Cruz from The Morning Blaze joining me as well, who is a combat veteran, having served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, who suffers with PTSD, who has had his ankles replaced.

Kris, over and over again, this was the story. This was the big fail out of Phoenix, as a matter of fact, where veterans died. It had to do with the wait times. Number one, the failure is that veterans do not get the timely service that they need. The timely appointments that they need. But then covering it up. They covered up the wait times and had a separate list.

KRIS: It's infuriating.

DOC: I don't know what else it takes. How many times do we have to hear these stories?

KRIS: And not just that. I tried -- Doc, I'm not the most healthy person out there.

DOC: Well, I think anyone that listens to The Morning Blaze knows that.

KRIS: Exactly. And one of the things, I have an issue with my heart burn. I get heart burns in the morning, and it's frustrating.

DOC: But it's chronic. And it's almost debilitating.

KRIS: Exactly. So I was like, you know what, I got to get this shot. I don't want to have an ulcer or something wrong with me. Because my body is telling me, hey, there's something wrong with me.

DOC: Too much acid.

KRIS: Exactly.

I called the VA in Orlando, Florida. And I was like, hey, I'm scared. You know, the syntax is no longer working. What can I do?

DOC: You got in and out, right?

KRIS: You can come in.

DOC: Oh, good job.

KRIS: February of the next year. And I was calling --

DOC: Were you calling in January?

KRIS: No, I was calling in July of the year before.

DOC: So you called in July, and they said, great, come in.

DOC: In February.

KRIS: In February. For something that I -- that I'm worried because I got heartburn every single morning.

DOC: Like excessive.

KRIS: Excessive.

And the medication says, if it prolongs two weeks or more, please contact your doctor because it could be something serious.

DOC: So they said -- this is happening. And if this happens for more than two weeks, contact your doctor. And you contact. And they're like, great. February.

KRIS: Great. We'll see you in February of 2017.

DOC: Hey. Wow. That's good.

KRIS: And I was like, are you kidding me?

They're like, oh, we're busy. But if somebody cancels, we'll call you.

DOC: Who is canceling? When everybody is backlogged nine months?

KRIS: I was like, nobody is going to cancel.

DOC: This is infuriating. Think about when I asked you about owning Uber. Maybe you own a business. What if your kids acted this way -- what if the guy who cuts your lawn. Maybe you're not a business owner, but you employ people to do things from time to time around your house. Your veteran area and your dentist. Whatever it is.

If this is how they treated you and your information, you would demand accountability. And you would demand an answer moving forward, or you would, what? No longer do business with them.

I think it's time we no longer do business with the Veterans Administration. It is time. It is shutdown.

Now, veterans out there, don't for a moment think I abandon you. I'm not suggesting that we shut it down and leave all of you. No. It is a slow shutdown, rolling out over the next four or whatever years it takes, at the same time, offering veterans another plan, where the United States government -- and by that, I mean American citizens pick up your health care fees. That's it.

There's the solution. We don't need all of these people working within the administration. We don't levels and levels of bureaucracy. We need money in the hands of those veterans, so they can get an insurance policy and go to the doctor. There are doctors everywhere, doctors that you can get in today, if you're not in the Veterans Administration.

The veterans would be able to pick whatever doctor they want. That is the accountability. I'm calling for it now. Over and over. Breaches of security. Veterans being killed. Secret wait lists. This continues to happen. And nobody is offering a solution. You want a solution. Here's the solution: results. We demand results.

No more left versus right, Democrat, Republican, unions or any of that crap. Results. All I want to hear is results.

You get in the debate with somebody. You're at Thanksgiving tomorrow, and it comes up. What are the results?

What has happened? What are the results? Well, we fired -- what were the results? Well, we got a new director. What were the results?

This is not two years of results we can look at. We can look at the last 50, 60. The Veterans Administration has been around since the 1930s. Prior to that, the Veterans Bureau for 10 years, and they failed. Over and over again. Every couple of years. Massive failures. What are the results? All I want, what are the results?

We've got a track record of continuous failure. What are the results? Great. There's no denying that.

Now, moving forward, if it is anything like we continue to do, well, we're going to get a new -- no, that hasn't worked. We'll change -- that hasn't worked. Shut it down. Give veterans the money or the policies they need to get the health care. And then get out of the way.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep