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

271–280 of 596 posts

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

#271

Post by c22 »

MichaelGG wrote: post #248
openasocket wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's only a lie if you don't make the pizzas.

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

#272

Post by watwut »

grandalf wrote: post #236
paulsutter wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lyft isn't facing a DOJ investigation

Lyft lagged in new markets and allowed Uber to establish the driver pool and consumer awareness. I'd say Lyft is a completely different investment than Uber. Lyft has made smart decisions but is generally "drafting" behind Uber. I'm not an investor in either, but one is good at leading, the other is good at following.

Breaking the law gives one competitive advantage. So does being unethical. Sad that some see it as "leadership".

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

#273

Post by SCAQTony »

Why is the Uber board allowing their CEO to continue to make sketchy ethical decisions? You would think they would ask Travis Kalanick to fall on his sword so the company can reboot and perhaps rebrand it's image so it would seem less "sinister" towards regulation, it's drivers and the law.

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

#274

Post by Jweb_Guru »

xiphias wrote: post #253
srbl wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

No, he didn't pay. It was a fake chatlog created by the investigators to make him look worse than what he did.

Do you have any actual proof that it was fake? I wasn't aware of any, and I can't find any, so this just looks like wishful thinking on your part.

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

#275

Post by easilyBored »

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.

Time Machine: "Uber settles with DOJ. While admitting to no wrongdoing, Uber agrees to pay $1.2 million fine and $232 in investigation costs."

Until people that OK'd, knew and /or executed a certain action go to jail, nothing will change. Lawyer fees and fines now are a tiny cost of doing business for big corps.

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

#276

Post by FireBeyond »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #150
bronson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.

5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.

Yes. You don't have to talk to cops. But that doesn't make you any less an accessory in this example.

You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.

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

#277

Post by grandalf »

gotothedoctor wrote: post #252
grandalf wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true It is :) > If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry. > its neither that protectable or even all that innovative Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself . Once this was in p…

It seems we disagree on too many facts. Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it. Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the…

> so be it.

No offense was meant by my phrasing, FYI.

> Thankfully we have choices

Yes we do. I think we likely agree on the overall benefits of Uber, but you are more inclined to focus on Lyft as a better instantiation of the idea and I'm just sort of defending Uber because it's fun to do so when everyone hates it.

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

#278

Post by npizzolato »

sandworm101 wrote: post #116
nebabyte wrote: post #62

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.

There doesn't need to be an actual crime. There needs to be an investigation of an actual crime. One which seems to have been taking place.

Also, given how often Uber is brought up in these forums for ignoring/breaking local laws, I really would not be surprised to find that they have committed real crimes. I would be far more surprised if they had not.

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

#279

Post by Consultant32452 »

openasocket wrote: post #251
mcbits wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Making it a crime serves as a deterrent for illegal activity. So when you prove the money came from criminal activity you can convict them for the criminal activity and the money laundering.

This seems similar to how we punish some crimes worse if you thought something mean about the person you committed the crime against.

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

#280

Post by npizzolato »

MichaelGG wrote: post #146
johncolanduoni wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But even that would be OK wouldn't it? Writing "Flour" on a bag before putting contraband powder in it shouldn't be illegal.

If you do that with the intention of passing through a checkpoint to hide your contraband, why shouldn't that be a crime?
Post reply on HN