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

111–120 of 596 posts

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

#111

Post by marme »

analogist wrote: post #78
nostromo wrote: post #44

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.

So you would be fine with your local restaurant "denying service" and locking the doors only when the food safety inspectors show up?

yes if the food safety inspector is not performing an inspection a restaurant has right to refuse them service. Uber was deny inspectors service while they were not doing announced inspections. This is like saying you cant refuse to sell alcohol to a minor if you know they are part of government undercover sting. Uber is able to identify government agents try to perform a sting and preemptively refused them service

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

#112

Post by johncolanduoni »

sushid wrote: post #89
pvg wrote: post #56

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?

A blind != a hologram projecting a false image while you do something illegal inside.

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

#113

Post by bogositosius »

nebabyte wrote: post #107
bogositosius wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mafia-like, protectionist taxi regulations should be considered the true conspiracy, IMHO.

Isn't that up to the cities?

Sure. And that's why the feds should stay out of it.

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

#114

Post by bogositosius »

kahnpro wrote: post #106
bogositosius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some city? I think Uber willfully and flagrantly evades the taxi regulations of almost every single city that has them.

So what?

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

#115

Post by mahyarm »

pvg wrote: post #65
xixi77 wrote: post #45

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?

Not letting the health inspector in your restaurant is not exercising your right to refuse service.

But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector, but you have a suspicion he might be, and doesn't say they are when you refuse service, could you still refuse service?

Could HN get in trouble for hellbanning/shadowbanning the wrong people too?

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

#116

Post by sandworm101 »

nebabyte wrote: post #62
DannyBee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, IANAL but it sounds like the definition of obstruction of justice

Not really. For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie. There needs to be an underlying actual crime. Whether Uber has committed any crimes is not clear. They will more likely bring conspiracy rather than obstruction charges.

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

#117

Post by wav-part »

nebabyte wrote: post #62
DannyBee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, IANAL but it sounds like the definition of obstruction of justice

Uber is not obstructing any investigation. They are proactively denying service to all LEOs. The mere act of driving or not driving to an LEO for whatever reason is not breaking of law.

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

#120

Post by kevan »

bogositosius wrote: post #40
kevan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those local officials were issuing arbitrary fines and illegally impounding cars I'd agree with you. But they weren't. Those local officials were enforcing the laws of their jurisdictions, which Uber was trying to circumvent.

So let the local officials bring a case.

If a police officer pulls me over and finds that I was driving without a license, they aren't going to let me drive away and file a case the next day. They're going to impound my car. Following that same logic, if a jurisdiction requires licenses for commercial taxi drivers, then operating as a taxi without that license will result in your car being impounded. Why do you feel these should be treated differently?
Post reply on HN