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

211–220 of 596 posts

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

#211

Post by pyre »

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?

> use your product fraudulently

If a LEO lies to you during the course of an investigation, do you think that you will be able to successfully claim that as fraud?

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

#212

Post by HappyTypist »

DannyBee wrote: post #182
sandworm101 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie." In the case i'm aware of, law enforcement was investigating criminal violations of local ordinances by unlicensed uber drivers. While i'm sure not a felony, that's definitely a criminal investigation they were seeking to stymie.

Those were all civil, not criminal.

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

#213

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

obstinate wrote: post #199
gotothedoctor wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the confusion/maybe I should have separated that into several points & or not sought to respond to the corporations are people comment I was certain I'd get before it was even said:) I'll try to unpack it but I may just make it worse.. 1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of thi…

Way more clear now. Thanks for taking the time.

Note the Supreme Court has explicitly expressed reluctance to apply RICO if it could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/us/supreme-court-voids...

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

#214

Post by thesmallestcat »

will_brown wrote: post #174
gotothedoctor wrote: post #162

Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from…

Forget software, here in Miami where Uber drivers were initially operating illegally (cited with violating 2 municipal ordinances each being a ~$1,010 civil fine, but escalates to criminal charge after the 3rd such violation) Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at airport take down phone; have drivers sit up front; etc...). I imagine there are similar emails for every county, cit…

I would hope the drivers always sit up front!

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

#215

Post by drawnwren »

holly4 wrote: post #188
gotothedoctor wrote: post #162

Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from…

Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.

What happened in 2008?

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

#216

Post by wav-part »

DannyBee wrote: post #181
wav-part wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"They are proactively denying service to all LEOs." No, that would be fine. They are instead, pretending to serve them and deliberately misleading them :) This is the "it's okay to not answer questions, it's not okay to deliberately mislead"

LEO interacting with an app is not same as if it was a person. LEO is not conducting an interview with Uber when he uses the app. UX is not legally accountable response.

To whom even Miranda warning will apply to ?

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

#217

Post by pyre »

MichaelGG wrote: post #149
DannyBee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by,…

But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? Surely if an unidentified police officer comes up and asks you something, lying to them can't be illegal. Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?

> Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?

Technically the law breakers are the Uber drivers, no? If so, then Uber is aiding them avoiding the cops.

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

#219

Post by pyre »

mahyarm wrote: post #115
pvg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector

If you look up his Facebook profile, find out that he's a health inspector, and deny him on the basis that he is a health inspector, what then?

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

#220

Post by lioeters »

drawnwren wrote: post #215
holly4 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.

What happened in 2008?

I'm guessing financial crisis precipitated by corporate crime/fraud on massive scale, going unpunished?
Post reply on HN