51–60 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it's done systematically throughout the nation, I'd say so.
Assuming this is true, why does that make it a federal issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Fair point. Personally I still think this is overreach but I can follow the legal footing on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming this is true, why does that make it a federal issue?
Because the federal government has jurisdiction over many things that cross state lines. Even if you personally never cross a state line, if you're coordinating people in multiple states to break laws, and sending information to them about what to do and how, there's a good chance you're on the wrong side of some federal laws.
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…
Why haven't you quit yet? There's been more ugly stuff coming out about Uber over the past few years than basically the entire of the rest of the tech industry combined.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked at the enumerated crimes and I don't see "evading city taxi regulations" in there.
How about obstruction of justice?
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.
It's not their right to operate where they are prohibited, and it's also not their right to feed people believed to be enforcing that prohibition false information to prevent themselves from being busted for violating that prohibition.
It's so strange how quickly all of this happened. Actually I guess it's been awhile. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 was in 2014, wow.
You know, I remember posting on this site years ago that the Uber CEO was a terrible person (Based on a few interactions I had with him back when UberCab had about 5 employees) and being told by some prominent people that I was wrong. This was back when YC was talking about how "niceness" was a key quality in successful founders. Feels good to have my instincts vindicated.
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.