101–110 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
"right" is a moral judgement. It depends on whether you see this as civil disobedience. It may be "right" and also illegal at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
I'm no fan of Uber, but if there are LEOs trying to use your product fraudulently (e.g. fake data, ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars), doesn't it make sense to try and stop this sort of operation? If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?
Enforcement is not 'fraudulent use'. These analogies are very strained while the thing that took place is very simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression it's illegal to intentionally mislead any federal employee, subpoena or not, in any communication whatsoever. Whether it's the "right" way or not, it seems like an API counts as a form of communication.
State laws are not enforced by federal officials though, correct?
RICO gives federal jurisdiction over cases of interstate entities committing obstruction of justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
I'm no fan of Uber, but if there are LEOs trying to use your product fraudulently (e.g. fake data, ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars), doesn't it make sense to try and stop this sort of operation? If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?
that'll be like arthur andersen shredding enron's financial accounts. can't investigate if there's nothing to investigate!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about obstruction of justice?
Point taken. I still think it's absurd to have a federal investigation over some city's taxi regulations being evaded, but at least I can follow the potential legal logic. Thanks for the info.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nationwide? Yes (at least arguably). At that point, it's a nationwide conspiracy. (Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
The mafia-like, protectionist taxi regulations should be considered the true conspiracy, IMHO.
This is really big; if they were misusing credit card records like that, they risk losing accreditation from their PCI systems. There is probably some criminal aspect to violating PCI as well. Does anyone here know more about how PCI works?
I'm not sure this is relevant to PCI. PCI is about the security of credit card information. Do you store it safely, is access restricted, etc. I don't think PCI is concerned with whether you're doing ethically shady stuff with the data so long as it's stored and transferred in compliant ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
0/100 (or 100/0 or whatever). "Above my pay grade" The code is the property of the company. Whoever ordered it be created and/or used would be culpable.
I agree they Should be culpable, but whether or not they Would is the decision that is actually above our paygrade.
It's spelled out in black and white in your employee agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
I'm no fan of Uber, but if there are LEOs trying to use your product fraudulently (e.g. fake data, ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars), doesn't it make sense to try and stop this sort of operation? If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?
If it's actually fraudulent, then, yes, you should stop it by suing and getting an injunction against the illegal government action.
If it's just enforcing the law that you are breaking, maybe you should quit breaking the law rather than engaging in elaborate technical means to conceal the violation, and expecting that won't cause additional problems when it is discovered.