How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide • Hacker News Board

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#521

Post by pharrington » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:26 PM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #479

prewett wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you also going to take the same generous view towards people evading State regulations and laws that you don't like? Because if you are only okay with people evading laws that you don't like, but they should obey the ones you do like, then you are setting yourself above the law. That way lies authoritarianism.

I think this is best exemplified by the 20th centuries most famous authoritarian, Martin Luther King Jnr

Again, civil disobedience accepts the legal consequences of its actions and is part of a vocal, public effort to change the laws the person or group deems unjust. The entire premise is to create better laws for everyone to abide by.

Uber uses deception to shield itself from the consequences of its criminal actions and consolidate wealth for itself. I'm assuming you're not trolling, so think long and hard about your own understanding of society the next time you want to compare MLK to an anarcho-capitalist megacorp.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#522

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:27 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #470

JoshTriplett wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being willing to break dumb rules to show how pointless they are is an excellent public service. Breaking rules that stand in the way of your profit is completely different, and it's important to call it out. Depends on whether you view this particular detail as part of providing a service people want (and thus want to pay for), or whether you view it as exclusively in the service of profit (whether it benefits peo…

There's a system set up to determine what rules are necessary, and some VC-funded bro isn't in a position to second-guess them (beyond his power at the polling booth). Your standard seems to be that a service should be legal if two or more people agree on a contract("providing a service people want and thus want to pay for"). But by that standard, there isn't a single regulation that is necessary. Sell a car without…

> There's a system set up to determine what rules are necessary

See "regulatory capture", and all the other ways that system can be broken or exploited. Also see the long history of how regulations written for yesterday's technologies work badly on today's and completely prevent tomorrow's from being created.

I'm extremely skeptical that this particular issue could have been effectively fixed another way, because I've seen what the proposed "solutions" looked like that "played by the rules".

> Your standard seems to be that a service should be legal if two or more people agree on a contract("providing a service people want and thus want to pay for").

No, that's not the completely general standard I'd advocate, though that would still come a lot closer to reasonable. A general standard would also internalize any externalities (and any parties affected by them) before evaluating that metric. (Though keep in mind that "reduces the demand for a competing service" is not an externality.) Overall, though, a world in which individual consent always wins would be better.

(We'd be better off still with a world where one of the providers of those services wasn't also, unrelatedly, engaged in various unethical behaviors such as discrimination.)

In any case, I'm not interested in turning this into a general evaluation of structures and approaches to regulation and government, not least of which because that would retread well-trodden conversational territory with little new to cover.

I think it's worth focusing on the specific case of "is the world better or worse off" here, and then asking how, if you see the specific path taken as a problem, the same goal could have been achieved in another way.

> to allow people to survive without doing an incredible amount of research into everything they consume

You shouldn't have to do 100% of the research yourself, but I think you should have a choice of who you delegate that responsibility and trust to.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#523

Post by konceptz » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:27 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #338

jfoutz wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's genius in a Lex Luthor kind of way. If I understood the full scope of the application, I like to think i'd decline to work on that. It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement. There's a big difference between keeping secrets for market advantage and to evade the law. In the first case, I want…

>If I understood the full scope of the application, I like to think i'd decline to work on that. It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement. It reminds me of the VW emissions cheating case: "Hey, have it detect whether the test cycle is running and emit a signal if true." 'Um... why would the system need to…

Agreed, and also the article states that multiple current and former employees reported this information.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#524

Post by snappyTertle » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #513

snappyTertle wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber was justifiably shady. They had to get around outdated laws that protects an outdated medium of transportation.

No, they simply went around laws that governed their market in order to outcompete other providers, and they are pretty smug about it. They never discriminated between laws that are obviously obsolete and laws that are still important.

Which laws were important?

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#525

Post by greghendershott » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:28 PM UTC

bluetidepro wrote: post #396

greghendershott wrote: post #127

Not only am I done with Uber, I'm starting to wonder about associates and partners (investors, advisors, marketing partners, etc.) If you're still doing business with Uber in 2017, it's because you don't want to know or you don't care who you're dealing with. Neither reflects well on you. It tells me you have your own very low bar -- your own version of "well we're not as awful as taxis shrug " -- above which anythin…

So, do you feel this same way with every product/investor/advisor/partner/etc. that works with evil companies such as Wal-Mart? Or most banks. Or most internet providers. Etc. It seems like you're very quick to jump on the "hate" bandwagon with Uber, but unless you are applying this logic to every company that's (more than likely) worse than Uber, it's pretty hypocritical. And I highly doubt that is the actual case t…

I think you think I said something different than what I think I said. :) I'm not talking about "evil" or "hate". I do understand needing to pick the least-worst option. And I'm not judging anyone else's situation/choices, as a customer.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#526

Post by corvus_sapiens » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:30 PM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #350

joe_the_user wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely highly intelligent but just as definitely something that implies a sort of double-or-nothing attitude. IE, Anything is on the table here, it seems (an attitude that can foster creativity certainly). For example, in the end game would Uber's enemies fair badly if they caught a ride in Uber's automatic cars? Indeed, the cars might even be seeking out people for "accidents". There's reason even the most…

I'm not sure of what my opinion of the morality is, but I (as a non-lawyer) don't see this as obstruction of justice. If I am a prostitute working the streets, and a police officer approaches me to offer me money for sex. But I notice he has police officer boots on, and suspect he is a cop. I then tell him I am not looking to offer any services for money. Is that obstruction of justice? Perhaps the credit card lookup…

IANAL either, but there's a difference between not falling into a trap and deceiving the authorities. To continue the analogy, it would be more akin to telling the officer that you're willing to offer services if he meets you at a different street corner with the intention of fleeing later.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#527

Post by takeda » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:30 PM UTC

rebuilder wrote: post #387

dragonwriter wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Greyball is just the tool they used to keep from getting caught Using a tool to avoid getting caught is, itself, evidence that one is aware of the impropriety of the action thereby protected. Many view this kind of awareness as increasing the shadiness of the underlying action.

Isn't this a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?

First, there's a huge difference to blocking access to everyone, and perhaps just allowing access to selected few vs allowing access for everyone and blocking access to few that could penalize you for doing it.

Second, privacy has nothing to do with it, this is not an information we talking about, but a service. A bit like dealing weed/prostitution/etc and actively looking if there isn't any cop around.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#528

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC

snappyTertle wrote: post #524

TeMPOraL wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they simply went around laws that governed their market in order to outcompete other providers, and they are pretty smug about it. They never discriminated between laws that are obviously obsolete and laws that are still important.

Which laws were important?

Insurance laws and employee laws, for starters. And even medallion laws in some places, because they offset the costs cabs incur for being a part of city transportation infrastructure - costs like adapting cars to service elderly and disabled.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#529

Post by Digory » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:33 PM UTC

neilc wrote: post #508

Digory wrote: post #304

Of all the things Uber is accused of this week, I'm pretty sure this one is the least concerning. It seems to involve the ethical dilemma of a radar detector. Speed limits are about public safety, too, but speed traps are usually about money. Ride-sharing regulations might be about safety, but Uber 'stings' seem to be about hurting drivers (not Uber) and preserving the value of taxi medallions. If the police want inf…

It seems to involve the ethical dilemma of a radar detector. It is similar, but I think an important difference is that Uber, as an organization, was deliberately flouting the law and also building tools to avoid suffering the consequences of that behavior. I'd say it is similar to the difference between an individual using a radar detector for personal travel vs. a trucking/shipping company equipping all of their ve…

Yes, the ethics at the level of "should I sell a device that lets (usually) minor law breakers avoid surprise enforcement."

Uber here seems to be in the same league as radar detector manufacturers, Waze's "Police" alerts, police scanner apps, etc.

Re: How Uber Used Secret “Greyball” Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide

#530

Post by iamcasen » Fri, Mar 03, 2017, 11:34 PM UTC

chinathrow wrote: post #471

If you work for Uber and read these stories, day after day, how do you feel working there? I am really interested - were there thoughts of walking away because of it?

I used to work at Uber, and there would always be bad press. Negative spins on just about everything we did.

It didn't deter me at the time simply because 90% was totally bogus and completely blown out of proportion. Just like this article is.

I left the company because it grew too big and the culture began to suffer for it, but all these doom and gloom stories about Uber breaking the law are just silly. Existing taxi regulations are terrible, and none of it makes any sense. None of it even benefits taxi drivers. They are designed to benefit companies who hold medallions, companies who are deep in bed with local governments.

Cities would never have had the incentive to get with the times if it wasn't for Uber, Period.