slightly, moving little after the federal reserve released the minutes of its october meeting. the minutes showed that some central bankers are concerned that prices in the u.s. economy are not rising fast enough. bankers were also worried about

increased risks due to economic problems in japan, china, and europe. is t-mobile back on the block? remains telekom says it an attractive asset for potential suitors. the germany company's ceo says a possible suitors include comcast, dish, and america mobile. this coming after sprint and iliad withdrew bids for t-mobile earlier this year. giantcloud computing sales force -- it reported third-quarter earnings. billion, up 29% year-over-year. the company posted a loss of $39 million. shares are trading lower in after-hours and the company also says the ceo -- coo will take a leave of absence for up to six months. steve wozniak has joined a startup called primary data as its chief scientist. its goal is to bring data mobility to enterprise customers. here he is, talking about the potential of working with apple. >> change comes quickly in this

business. trying to plan for the change is very difficult. that is where primary data will be helping out in the future. >> catch the full interview with was snack tomorrow on -- steve wozniak on "bloomberg west." just hours after the uber ceo tweeted that tracking journalists is not part of the company's values and ideals, there is a new allegation, this time, buzzfeed says one of its reporters was tracked by uber new york gm by the ridesharing app's technology which allows uber to see lots of customer activity. uber sent this statement, saying, quote --

that is one of uber's issues. another is a lingering saga involving emil michael. investors, including ashton kutcher, appeared to support that view, tweeting -- at least publicly, the ceo disagrees, ending his 14-tweet rant on the subject with the following. sarah, the editor-in-chief, joins us here in the studio. sarah, it has been an incredible 48 hours for you. >> more than that. i first heard about this from [indiscernible] the story has been really focused to me and travis and

emil. let's not forget, this was said at a table full of journalists. 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. 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 the plan as it was described is not just to dig up dirt. we are talking about a million-dollar budget, four to six staff team to do opposition research on me. 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. one journalist thought this was wrong. as soon as i heard this, i was terrified. helso thought, thank god said it to a real journalist, otherwise he would be doing it and i would have no idea. >> you have ups your own personal security. security at pando. >> i don't want to deal with detail too much, because the point is for my family to be safe. i have two young kids. uber's view was, let's hit her at her one vulnerability, her kids, and they succeeded. we have had to totally redo the security at my house. 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 michaels has not been fired. right after travis apologizes publicly in twitter, we see what will go away. they have their celebrity investor come out and label me as shady.

he backs me away from it, but i'm now labeled as a shady bernal list -- shady jouranlist. -- journalist. you can see what travis bagged about -- bragged about. that is what is happening. when this dies down, there's no repercussions. investors are supporting it. they are going to either go forward with their plan or do something worse. warranted oned a million dollars smear campaign, that war and 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? the bare minimum we can all agree on is that emil michaels 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 a classic lame and shame the woman psychology -- blame and shame the woman psychology. imagine, a woman is attacked in a way. she doesn't have the resources of private security. she can't 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 it's about every single board member and private investor stepping back and being ok with it. people have met my kids. in 15 years of covering the valley, i've never seen anything like this. you have to wonder if the hp

pre-texting scandal came out, when journalists' phone records were tapped, would there be any outrage? >> do you think this was said to a group of journalists so that all of the journalists would disseminate the intimidation, or just some guy shooting off his mouth? >> it was not a guy shooting off his mouth. he articulated a plan. this is 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 i'm a woman and i'm high profile and a new -- they knew they could go after my kids. it is either they were putting the journalists on notice -- it would work with a lot of people. they don't think there's anything wrong with it. so what are the plans they would not brag about at a dinner? that's why i have private security right now. >> this question of on versus off the record, if both parties

understood this was off the -- if you hear something this extreme, do you break that journalistic code? >> yes. i don't understand. into the olde world of journalism. i don't 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 there covering who is going to lie to them or say something terrific and illegal the damages someone's family security off the record, and that trumps that responsibility to the reader. i want to be clear to any source of my listening to this, my responsibility is to my readers, to the users of these services. it is not to you. if you confess to a crime to me off the record, it will become on the record. >> there are critics of you who have said your coverage of uber

has been potentially unfairly critical and more critical than pandodaily's coverage of lyft. andreessen horowitz is an investor in lyft. how do you respond to that? >> it is the one thing that everyone goes back to. [indiscernible] a very close friend of travis is, was one of the first big backers of pando. matt kolar from benchmark -- there are people on uber's board that are investors in pando. >> sarah lacy, founder of pandodaily. we will consider -- into new this conversation. -- continue with this conversation.

>> i'm emily chang. this is "bloomberg west." the controversy over comments executivee uber uber about targeting journalists critical of the company is not the only public relations storm surrounding the ridesharing app

today. one of its reporters was tracked by the uber gm using the company's so-called god view technology, which allows uber to see logs of customer activity. lacy's take onah the ethics. >> as we discovered 24 hours before, they included legitimate business purposes included going through my garbage and having me followed. i don't have confidence in what uber considers a legitimate business purpose. >> did they actually go through the plan to go through your garbage? far as i know, they haven't, but i don't know. i have no way of knowing. >> do you think this is something that is pervasive of uber's company versus a couple of employees who are out of line? >> it is somewhere between the two. i used to take uber. we started raising questions

about this company's ethics since 2012. i still use the ridesharing app until recently. i like a lot of the drivers i interacted with. ishought even though travis morally corrupted and has a portable not stand up to him, in spite of that i thought they were doing good in the world. they say they're employing 50,000 new people a month. >> we have all covered startups long enough to know the culture comes from the top. a senior executive sets a tone. what we see over and over again, when uber gets in these pr messes, they never fire anyone responsible. what message does that send? get rewarded for taking more risks that frequently involve putting women's lives in danger. we all have young children. dot does a three-year-old when they are expecting bad behavior that doesn't get checked, doesn't get checked? it escalates. what is happening now is the biggest uber scandal because

none of the other stuff has ever been checked. >> so you have uber investors -- people who wish they had invested in uber calling travis one of the best ceo's ever. >> is very convincing. he's very passionate. >> is there something wrong with his strategy? >> there is something wrong with no one questioning a founder. the board and investors are terrified of him. this is the first time in silicon valley in my time covering it that i thought a company would be served by going public immediately. i think public market investors would not let one person have this much power and control unchecked. unfortunately in silicon valley, this company has gotten so valuable so quickly tom and the homemultibillion dollars runs are so rare that people are terrified. they will not do anything about

it. this company already has a home run. you wonder why do they have to resort to what some people have called -- of what wase plans going to be done to my family. a lot of the investors have young children. some of these people see travis as a guy they don't want to cross. >> when suddenly similar happens to this but they are concerned about or the ceo is concerned about a leak, one of the board members talking to somebody in the press until they hire to and goly tap phone calls through their garbage as well, hire investigators to go through their garbage, but there was a criminal investigation. do you think there needs to be an investigation based on what has happened to you? >> i don't think were at the point of a criminal investigation yet. fact thatring for the no one has been fired, no action

has been taken, and as soon as this dies down they will come at me in this or a worse way. >> when it comes to data, uber is not the first company to struggle with how do they handle customer data. how should they handle the data they are getting? the examples of misogyny in this company are astounding. there's the whole glory ride thing where they were tracking by looking at the data patterns who was having one night stands and high-fiving people over this. this is a company that clearly is not just looking at customer data to route cars more effectively. when you talk about the data they have on you, they are making assumptions of are you sleeping with someone based on your patterns. it is really quite scary. >> more of her interview with sarah lacy, next. ♪

>> welcome back. i'm emily chang. as controversy ensues over uber 's treatment of journalists, should users also worry about their privacy while using the app? cory johnson i spoke with the pandodaily editor sarah lacy about this issue. >> this story is fascinating because it is a litmus test for silicon valley investors, and do they have a conscience over money. it is a litmus test for journalists and will they stand up and say you cannot dismantle us. it is also a litmus test for the public. in the past, people have voted with their feet when it comes to facebook, google, privacy. uber is different because it's the real world. you're getting in people's cars. is that finally scary enough that it changes consumer behavior? uber, there are other

alternatives. at the end of the day, when i take any of the ride services in san francisco, they have two to three phones on the -- because they are driving all of these services. a as frightening as this is -- i have been through this myself in different ways from investors -- there are journalists out there in jails in iran. there are journalists covering isis scared to death. is on a different level. i think we should acknowledge that, at the very least. >> frankly, if you are a mother and there are threats made against her children, that is -- >> [indiscernible] >> based on what i know at this company, i'm convinced about that. >> freighting stuff -- frightening stuff. >> yeah. to ashton kutcher's comment, ashton kutcher was saying on twitter this morning and saying

why shouldn't journalists be held to the same standard. it's not about that. we should be held to a standard -- >> what is the same standard? >> they should not go through his trash either. michaels said, give me a taste of my own medicine. i'd never gone through these people's trash or follow their kids. i have never hired a team of opposition researchers to go at their family and destroy them. >> it is not clear that they actually hired -- >> the plan was to give me a taste of my medicine, along those lines. hashe uber spokesperson said, we do not investigate journalists. >> then why haven't they fired him? does not represent his views, whose views do they represent? they came out of his mouth. he's not denying that. why haven't they fired him? >> this is one person that said this, right?

do you know if this goes beyond that? >> i definitely know secondhand accounts. i have not had anyone say it to me. >> do you think travis was at this dinner -- >> travis was at this dinner. my question is what was heard, who heard what emil michaels said other than ben smith. i wasn't there. i know travis very well. what concerns me is to know several of the investors and board members are very well, and i e-mailed them as soon as they story came out. rob hayes from first round. bill gurley from benchmark. i said, do you support this company using $1 billion -- $1 million of money? [indiscernible] >> should any of this be forgiven? >> no. no. you have to earn forgiveness. you have to earn forgiveness.

there is no action. no one has been fired. and today, you see political strategy 101, a celebrity investor who has a higher profile than anyone coming out, calling me a shady journalist, the same thing they do when women drivers say they have been attacked in their cars. attack my character. they are doing the same playbook they outlined. >> i thought it was telling in travis' twitter blast that he used the word [indiscernible] obamais something that uses uncomfortably as well when he is trying to sound like other people. >> do you think this is going to matter to customers? >> i hope so. i think that's the only hope. we have seen investors won't act. >> sarah lacy, editor-in-chief with pandodaily. it is a heated issue between silicon valley and washington, net neutrality. can the millions in lobbying

spent really by the votes? -- buy the votes they need? ♪

>> you're watching "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang, here with cory johnson. went public with his call for the federal communications commission to adopt tougher rules for internet service providers, calling for them to be regulated like phone companies. now the fcc says there will be no decision on net neutrality until 2015, when republicans will control both the house and the senate. how will this impact legislation? michael beckerman is president and ceo of the internet association, the lobbying organization formed by google,

facebook, yahoo!, and other tech giants. thank you for joining us. what is your position on this? >> our position from the beginning is that we need strong, enforceable net neutrality rules to prevent websites, blocking slowing down websites. we also said these rules are in the mobile age. those rules need to apply to mobile as well. >> does netflix have the loudest voice in this? >> that is something everybody is talking about. forho should ultimately pay bandwidth? >> i think everybody is paying. internetying for your service from your provider, comcast, verizon, at&t. your are my expectation is i want the entire internet, and i want the speed and quality i'm paying for. the isp should not say, if you want to visit this site it could be a little bit slower. >> the question the fcc is

wrestling with how to govern that, there is section 706 which says they can figure out how they want to do it. then there is title ii, which is written into the original telecommunications act of 1934, which says it is a public utility, everyone has an equal right to the information. that carries a burden to comcast and others, because they will have to support services. >> a few things. the point in this debate that got the most attention was the legal jurisdiction the fcc has. that is the legal framework that the fcc will defend in open court. what matters the most is what kind of rules that they fcc implements. >> when they choose these rules, they're going to support one legal notice or the other. has been on the

actual rules. it needs to be simple enough that if you are an internet user or startup, you don't need to hire an army of fcc attorneys to navigate this. >> what is your sense of where the fcc will come down? they don't report to the president. where do you think they are going to fall? >> they have heard from over 4 million individual americans who care about this issue. >> isn't that amazing? >> this has never happened before. this is not an easy process to navigate. this is a regulatory filing at the fcc. 4 million people thought it was important enough to have their heard. this has to be addressed right away. >> how likely is it that they will go against what the president wants? >> they will probably end up doing the right thing to protect internet users -- >> which is? the right thing are the kind

of rules of the president outlined, which is include mobile, make sure there is not discrimination, make sure the transparency rules are enhanced, and the jurisdictional question -- >> a company like comcast, they feel like they are a victim. >> i don't think comcast is a victim here. the victim or the internet users and potentially new startups, internet companies. >> it is interesting to me that you guys -- facebook is no small startup child now. those of the companies -- including netflix, that could stand to benefit from using their power and money to keep a new competitor from showing up at the front door at the same time as their netflix or facebook juggernaut. commitment toeir internet users, that they are doing the right thing. you cannot have a gate keeper in the middle of users and the providers of the internet. >> what are some of the legal challenges? this is an uphill battle, right? >> we will have to see.

is an independent agency. the chairman will have to come up with a proposal, and then we will see. there will be oversight in congress, and legal challenges from verizon. what have your conversations -- >> we have had a number of meetings at the fcc. is frustrated with the process, but he has committed to us that he wants to do the right thing. they want to make sure that whatever the legal jurisdiction is -- he had some interesting things to say. one of the things he said to me is, cory, which public utility to you think comcast and the cable providers should emulate? is it our roads? that is a horrible system. how about our sewers? how is that working out? >> michael powell is a great,

but i don't think those are fair analogies. in most markets, there is really a monopoly. most of the regulation the people are talking about that or board about utility regulation they say will be for baird -- forbeared upon. when you have to make a phone call, you don't expect at&t say we can't put you through. you are trying to call one of our competitors and they will have to pay to connect this call. expectationstain of internet users accessing the entire internet for what they are paying for and the speed and quality they are paying for. >> michael beckerman, obviously we will follow this until decision day. thanks so much for joining us. it could be the band-aid of the future. we will introduce you to a startup working on a new gel designed to stop bleeding, even on the battlefield. ♪

>> i'm emily chang. this is "bloomberg west." sweet's sam grobart got an exclusive look at the technology and innovations that may disrupt our lives in 2015. today we are talking about that may and a new gel be the band-aid of the future. this is the year ahead. from the second floor of a humble brick building in brooklyn, new york, a small biotech company is working on a product that could revolutionize emergency medicine. it is called vetigel. it is so traumatic bleeding almost instantly. >> we are hoping it changes the way the world looks at wound care. not only stopping bleeding, but being able to treat burns. we could even apply the

technology into the regeneration of organs one day. i am the ceo here. the company started about four years ago, when i was a freshman at nyu. to use polymer to seal a wound very quickly. in the beginning, i was not expecting the polymer itself would be able to quickly stop bleeding. we realized we put it onto a wound, something remarkable would happen. it would change shape, it would change color, and attract -- interact with the tissue in a way not expected. blood beingtual pumped through a piece of liver. vetigel is applied, and the bleeding stops. >> that was the moment that showed we were onto something much bigger than we thought we were. vetigel works in tandem with

the body's natural healing processes in a way that has not been tried before. ofthe gel is made up plaster, polymer. we extract pieces of the cell walls. when applied to a wound, the lego blocks will reassemble on whatever you put the next two. if you put them onto skin, it will reassemble into the pattern of the skin. with that you can get a very fast clot formed. >> this is the location in the lab where you're going to test the efficacy of what you are creating. >> absolutely. >> the challenge now for the aam is to find vetigel into market ready, fda approved product so it can start saving lives. at the station, their measuring how quickly vetigel clots blood. on itsave whole blood own versus blood with our product.

we have already caught it in a short period of time. >> what does this mean for its application in the real world? >> let's say there is a soldier shot on the battlefield, three minutes to live, leading out of his artery. the next leading competitor can stop the bleeding in five to ten minutes. you apply this, in 15 seconds you can ensure that not only will the bleeding stopped, he will remain stopped. itsetigel is about to make real-world debut as a product for the veterinary market, and will have to prove safe and effective for animals if it's ever going to be approved for humans. but joe flick expect this technology will eventually become ubiquitous in health care. >> our goal is to get this in every ambulance, in every mom's purse. that means having a product that is easy enough to be used by just about anybody. >> the folks behind vetigel know they have a long road ahead of them. any new medical breakthrough

does. it's going to be a ton of time and a mountain of paperwork before what they are devising can be use on human beings. but should that time come, what we see here isn't just some esoteric tool that can be added to a surgeon's kit. this might be the band-aid of the future. >> libber businessweek's sam grobart. be sure to tune in to the year ahead special, airing this weekend, saturday and sunday. we will look at 10 innovations that will change everything you know about tech, food, and medicine. --ing up, grand theft auto 5 it's out. does the latest edition take sex and violence too far? ♪

>> welcome back to "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang. grand theft auto is a notoriously gritty game and it grossed over $1 billion in sales. "grand theft auto 5" allows people to have graphic, first-person sex with a pros titute. joining me is the cofounder and and from new york,

christopher grant. not only can you have sex with a prostitute in this videogame, you can also kill them afterwards. isn't that crossing a line? >> does it cross a line? i would say they are trying to very mature story for this. grand theft auto is a mature game. it's not for kids. are they crossing the line? not anymore than you would any movie or television show where you might do the same thing. this is a criminal setting. it's a gritty underworld. it is art. i have embraced that art, and it's beautiful art, but it is gritty. let's make no bones about the environment in which we operate. we stand shoulder to shoulder with other major motion picture releases, major television shows that explore a similar universe. >> chris, i wonder -- we see prostitution and murder and killing in movie and television, but is it different when you are giving video gamers the opportunity to do it themselves?

>> it's important to listen to what strauss is saying. we stand shoulder to shoulder with these other entertainment mediums. video games are art. when the last grand theft auto game came out in 2008, we did not have the supreme court case in 2011 that put video games at the same level as other entertainment mediums. i think he will start to hear companies like [indiscernible] in other companies defend themselves against the regular litany of criticism about violence and sex by saying, this is art, this is like movies and tv and now we have a supreme court decision that agrees with us. discussing whether it is too far is a little strange. now you're getting into censorship of things people might deem is unpalatable. don't play it or don't buy it. for grand theft auto, they have a lot of consumers that can make that choice. i don't think it is supposed to be sexy. i think it is posted be grim and lurid -- supposed to be grim and

lurid. >> what is the state of the art of pushing the envelope there? i cannot believe some of the things that i saw. the violence is so much more disturbing. what is the state-of-the-art in pushing the envelope here? >> that's the discussion we have at ign quite a bit. we talk about when do these video games become so real that you actually feel guilty when you kill somebody. do you feel guilty when you raise a gun? we are getting to the point now with the graphics that we are seeing in the new generation consoles that we are getting close to that. questions,it's good it's good things to ask, a good debate to have. thehat's one thing about games, they are in a setting that is familiar, literally collins avenue. >> the goal is to make it feel as real as possible. you can get a gut feeling.

you do get very emotional while playing it sometimes, especially when the graphics become more real. >> is that why we are seeing the success of duty," or zombie duty," orcall of zombie games? >> i think the enemies are apparent to the perspective of the player at that point. >> the player is a carthy. >> -- car thief. >> just like in a movie, where the main character is a car thief. in a wargame, we often talk about when does it get so gritty that you get posttraumatic stress disorder from playing a videogame. >> what about the first-person nature of these games, the emotional impact to have -- they have, and how that plays that when you are a real person interacting in the real world after you play it? >> that is why we're having this discussion today. grand theft auto 5 came out a year ago.

comparing it to shooters like "call of duty," those games don't trigger this kind of response. what is it about grand theft auto 5 that is upsetting? it's a real-world setting. i think it's the way the animation is done. this game is billed as a third person game. you see your arms and legs. you can see the sky through the windshield red it has a much different feel than most of your first-person games. i think rockstar is betting that we will find this upsetting. wet is a strategic decision wrote yesterday on polygon that it was dangerous again, after years of not being dangerous,, that grand theft auto feels dangerous again. they're good at pushing that envelope. they are good at challenging players to actually ask themselves what they are comfortable with. there's a scene in grand theft that5, a torture scene

made a lot of people -- as included -- us included -- made us very uncomfortable. we thought it was distasteful. that is what they are doing. they want us to talk about it on bloomberg. >> legal or not, can we talk about right or wrong? this to me just seems like it is over the line. >> can i wait until my kids are out of the house to play this game? >> don't have them in the room. absolutely. >> i would not play this in front of my kids. i won't play the zombie games in front of my kids. >> don't watch tarantino movies with your kids. >> i also won't do that. >> watching a movie is different from doing it yourself in a videogame. i know it is technically not real, but it feels real. >> i'm not sure it is different for this generation. it's just another form of media now. >> what is this done for sales of this game? [indiscernible]

>> they are approaching 40 million sales for gta 5, including the last generation. there is anywhere between 16 to 20 million. the new generation consoles -- i imagine they will get a good percentage of those. we may see this pumping up to 50 million soon, biggest entertainment launch in the history of entertainment. this is a cultural phenomenon. grant,s for editor-in-chief of polygon. healthy debate today here on bloomberg. it is time for the bwest ice, where we focus on one number that tells a whole lot. what have you got? >> i have not got it. our friend adam satariano is in the news with the "byte." what have you got? [indiscernible] >> had to come up with this good nickname on the spot. >> interesting improvisation over there. [laughter]

>> 2000, that's the number of nonprofits in san francisco that have had to move out of the city or have closed their doors amid a boom that has commercial real estate prices on pace to surpass new york by next year. the tech boom has been great for san francisco, but it also has some ripple effects and unintended consequence for groups providing safety net services like homeless care, in-home care for elderly as well as environmental preservation groups, legal aid, things like that. the tech boom has been good for san francisco, but there's also been consequences. how theows you companies changing society can change the city's mayor and just by being there. >> i wonder what the response has been from the city to this. it is obviously something they are continuing to struggle with. adam satariano, thank you so much. all for watching this

edition of the show. all the latest headlines all the time on your phone, your tablet, bloomberg.com and bloomberg radio. ♪