61–70 of 596 posts
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?
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.
That's not what happened here at all. Uber deliberately tried to identify which users were law officers, and hide lawbreaking on the part of their drivers from them, in order to enable uber to make money.
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?
It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.
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?
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 may "seem so" to you. But the law "seems to" say otherwise.
Which is precisely the point.
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.
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…
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.
> I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed 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.
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.
Nobody was forcing Uber to do anything. They were trying to deny agents of public regulatory bodies the ability to assess them. That isn't any kind of 'right'.