Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 596 posts

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#41

Post by taneq »

samrap wrote: post #18

At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until: > For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement. Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth bi…

> Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces.

But if you're a startup that fails early, it doesn't. The thinking is that you do whatever it takes to make it, and that if your nefarious deeds ever come to light it just proves that you've made it big enough to cop some scrutiny.

I don't agree with it, but many do.

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#42

Post by dpark »

bogositosius wrote: post #21
tyingq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RICO laws are pretty broad.

True. But considering RICO's original intent, investigating a software company for evading draconian local taxi regulations seems out of scope.

RICO covers fraud and obstruction of justice, both of which could theoretically apply to Grayball (or not, depending on the facts uncovered).

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#44

Post by nostromo »

I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.)

If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that.

And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#45

Post by xixi77 »

What exactly part of this is criminal? I mean, isn't any business free to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they like (for example government employees, hackers, or Democrats), as long as they are not in one of several protected categories like sex/race/national origin/etc.? Or is this violating consumer privacy laws when CC info is used this way?

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#46

Post by stepitup »

What's really strange is that I bet a good percente of the people reading this comment will know exactly what I mean when I refer to a: "Startup that employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them."

Why aren't the authorities going over the ACTUAL, honest-to-god mafia startup? Sorry, I realize it's off topic here, but my first thought when I read "Justice Dept begins criminal probe" -- was FINALLY!

We all know which company I'm referring to. And all I said was "employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them". There's only one company like that in our "community". Why are they allowed to behave that way with immunity?

(Sorry to hijack this thread. Also, I have no disclaimer to make and am not associated with either company.)

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#47

Post by askafriend »

stepitup wrote: post #46

What's really strange is that I bet a good percente of the people reading this comment will know exactly what I mean when I refer to a: "Startup that employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them." Why aren't the authorities going over the ACTUAL, honest-to-god mafia startup? Sorry, I realize it's off topic here, but my first thought when I re…

Can't wait until Nextdoor replaces Yelp. It's only a matter of time.

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#48

Post by bogositosius »

openasocket wrote: post #39
bogositosius wrote: post #2

Evading local regulators is a federal matter?

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru... Any organization that is suspected of committing one of a list of crimes enumerated in that article, and engages in activity across state lines, falls under federal jurisdiction. In this case, I'm guessing the charge is obstruction of justice. But I'm not a lawyer, and they could be using something other than RICO to press this case

I looked at the enumerated crimes and I don't see "evading city taxi regulations" in there.

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#49

Post by mdavidn »

samrap wrote: post #18

At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until: > For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement. Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth bi…

> I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.

The app stopped working for me. That got me to install Lyft. Then I wondered why I hadn't earlier.

Around the time Uber started tracking users _after_ a ride, their "search for destination" feature stopped working for me. After I tapped my destination from the list of results, the app would hang indefinitely with a terrible bouncing progress bar along the top. I couldn't even summon an Uber to speak with the driver.

Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

#50

Post by openasocket »

bogositosius wrote: post #27
ModernMech wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If money is moving from one state to another, then I would assume it's considered Interstate commerce, which is federal jurisdiction.

Sure, but what federal law was broken? I wasn't aware that the federal government enforces local city regulations just because money is moving between states.

RICO explicitly defines racketeering to include several kinds of state law violations
Post reply on HN