121–130 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that up to the cities?
Sure. And that's why the feds should stay out of it.
> Company seemingly undergoes systemic effort to break such laws in cities across state lines
> Fed gets involved to investigate possibility of racketeering
Not seeing the problem here...?
>the Greyball technique was also used against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars or otherwise prevent Uber from operating, the employees said Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees?? I think going after average or in many cases poor people trying to make a buck drivin…
> Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees?? When the "harm" is enforcing the law (issuing tickets for illegal behavior), do you sincerely believe this? If so, where's the line? Can my employer delay the cops at the front door while I head out the back over: - Parking tickets? - Drug use? - Fraud? - Theft? - Assault?…
If LEOs decide they want to waste everyone's time in what's basically entrapment, I've no problem with people wasting their time back.
Imagine they were doing that to a pizza place, ticketing delivery drivers? How bad would the pizza place be for letting the phone ring? For saying "Yeah, we'll get that right out to you..." and doing nothing?
(I don't know enough to say whether (or to what degree) the system was misapplied; it might well have been. Just that not all law enforcement use is automatically legitimate...)
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.
beenz
flooz
webvan
pets.com (albeit, their business model has been vindicated by amazon many years later)
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.
Wasting the time of an abusive user? Probably okay. Kicking off law enforcement officers? Probably okay. Deliberately wasting the time of investigators? Probably crosses the line.
Compare two scenarios when an undercover officer is investigating a biker bar for dealing meth:
Scenario A: The officer seems somehow off to the bartender. Bartender glances around at his buddies, who shake their heads. "We don't want your kind in in here, get out."
Scenario B: Officer is identified as a cop. Bartender invites him to sit at a table far in the back with no view of anything. Any time the officer gets up, he's told to leave or sit back down. They have members stand within earshot of him and pretend to plan out fake meth deals at places where nothing will actually happen.
In A, the bar is on firm legal ground. In B, they're not, and that's basically what the Greyball program is.
Note: insights drawn from the earlier discussion about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13785564
Uber is having one hell of a year. Anyone have an idea whether it has significantly affected their recruitment of new people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. And that's why the feds should stay out of it.
> Cities make laws that are up to them > Company seemingly undergoes systemic effort to break such laws in cities across state lines > Fed gets involved to investigate possibility of racketeering Not seeing the problem here...?
Nope. Let the cities enforce their own laws.
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.
Their service was illegal under local law, Uber moved the money from their illegal activity in to the banking system and across state lines and a slew of other things that would likely trigger the very broad money laundering laws. Interstate transfer of proceeds from a criminal activity is almost certainly an activity the feds can look into.
I'm guessing the feds can also "assist" the local jurisdictions in the case that the local criminals are an interstate organization that has been committing a slew of crimes across the nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
So Uber is now Theranos?