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

241–250 of 596 posts

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

#241

Post by DannyBee »

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?

"But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? "

Actually, Uber tracked the people who were around police stations, or likely to be officers, and gave them fake data.

So you have it the wrong way around :)

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

The problem here is that uber was helping to cover up someone else's crime. The crime was committed by the uber drivers (usually a misdemeanor of not having proper licensing). Uber is helping cover up that crime. It is also, even worse for uber, the case that they made money by doing so.

If every time people that look like they might be cops come around investigating your friend, you hide your friends drugs, yes, you are committing obstruction

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

#242

Post by gotothedoctor »

orblivion wrote: post #225
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…

Just for the sake of discussion: What about Silk Road? I would say that's a legitimate case of a company (of sorts) engaging in civil disobedience. Ross Ulbricht was ideologically motivated. I've heard some rumors about Travis' ideology. Maybe he's similar. (He named his company Uber, maybe he's some sort of Nietzschean?)

You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience.

Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished?

When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries.

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

#243

Post by srbl »

orblivion wrote: post #225
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…

Just for the sake of discussion: What about Silk Road? I would say that's a legitimate case of a company (of sorts) engaging in civil disobedience. Ross Ulbricht was ideologically motivated. I've heard some rumors about Travis' ideology. Maybe he's similar. (He named his company Uber, maybe he's some sort of Nietzschean?)

For what it's worth, Ross Ulbricht also paid to have 5 people killed. (They of course were not killed, because it was part of the larger sting, but that's irrelevant to his repugnant behavior)

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

#244

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

gotothedoctor wrote: post #228
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's not my read of that case & I don't think it applies here regardless. as per above, Uber is a company, so it can't engage in civil disobedience--thus there need be no concern that RICO "could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience." Basically, in 2003, a very different SCOTUS said sorry Planned Parenthood, but, actually Operation Rescue, as awful & harassing as they are, are not committing EXTORT…

I'm not arguing that it applies in this case, I'm just responding to parent's statement that "To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the same crime otherwise." I'm saying that many penalties take motive into consideration, and SC expressed concern about expanding motive in RICO cases in a way that could be applied to civil disobedience.

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

#245

Post by sandworm101 »

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.

If you are going to bring obstruction charges you will want to base them on something greater than license violations. That's akin to the cop threatening me with obstruction charges for warning other motorcyclists about a speed trap. Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a serious crime unto itself.

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

#246

Post by mcbits »

openasocket wrote: post #238
mcbits wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is known (proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that the money was acquired illegally, then mission accomplished. Convict them of the actual crime. If not, then the "crime" of moving money around in unconventional ways does seem pretty bogus - a way to punish someone on a hunch without the hassle of actually producing evidence. Much like when police search for drugs and fail to find anything, so they just take any…

Often the actual laundering process is done by a third party who takes a cut. A middleman who provides money laundering as a service to criminals. Under your scheme that person wouldn't be committing a crime and could not be prosecuted. But that's beside the point. The crime isn't "moving money around in unconventional ways," it's lying to the IRS and other government agencies. It's signing your name on all those tax…

If someone commits perjury, convict them of perjury. There's no need to invent yet another crime. But I suspect it's not perjury. If a laundromat has an extra $500k of income and reports it as income, paying all relevant taxes, then so be it. If there is proof that the money came from criminal activity, then convict someone of that crime. Otherwise it's just a hunch.

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

#248

Post by MichaelGG »

openasocket wrote: post #223
MichaelGG wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have money for whatever reason. I pump it through a business of mine, paying taxes, etc. Normally this is totally fine - I'm not using it to commit fraud against investors, I'm paying taxes, etc. The important thing is that no one is being harmed, it's just me seeking some privacy in my own finances, and perhaps losing some money for the privilege (I may be spending post-tax money). Or perhaps it's simpler than tha…

Money laundering is lying on federal documents, claiming your business is making more than it really is. And there's no reason to do it unless you've gotten the money illegally: otherwise you could just report to the IRS why you really have that money. And you suggest people are/should be able to lie on federal forms in the name of privacy?

What lie is required? You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS. Where's the lie?

Edit: Keep in mind if your original money you evaded taxes on, that's already a crime. As is committing crimes, if that's how you got the money. "Laundering" is just a non-crime used to make LE's job easy, expanding power and reducing privacy. AML and KYC laws are an affront to liberty.

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

#249

Post by malto »

bogositosius wrote: post #21
tyingq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RICO laws are pretty broad.

True. But considering RICO's original intent, investigating a software company for evading draconian local taxi regulations seems out of scope.

It's not out of scope. Uber is a corrupt organization.

Here's to hoping that one of Travis Kalanick's numerous criminal actions (such as his decision to steal Google's self-driving tech) comes home to roost. There's now a material chance that Ubers investors (and many employees) will get zeroed out due to their reckless, willful, criminal actions.

And frankly, that's fucking hilarious.

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

#250

Post by MichaelGG »

DannyBee wrote: post #240
pyre wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly.

Thank you both for the explanation.
Post reply on HN