281–290 of 596 posts
Ok, what's the over under on the people who coded this getting used as scapegoats? I'm at about 40/60 against. Morality and legality in software is a massive frontier we hardly pause to think about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some city? I think Uber willfully and flagrantly evades the taxi regulations of almost every single city that has them.
So what?
At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until: > For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement. Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth bi…
Can anyone comment if this would fly in Europe? AIUI, you can only use information for the purposes for which it was taken. Taking someone's credit card number is for processing payment. Filtering it for fraud seems like it would be okay, but "checking if they're a narc" seems like it would cross the line. (Yes, I asked about this in the last thread, but my question and the replies were about credit card/PCI agreemen…
As you've mentioned, basically you can only use user's data for purposes stated in EULA (and they can't be overly abstract i.e. "we do anything we like with your data"). Though, sadly it's rare to see enforcement of data privacy laws except few show-off trials.
P.S. currently data protection laws vary a little country by country, but even more strict, EU-wide data protection laws will enter into force next year that also applies (on paper) to non-EU companies that serves EU citizens[1]. See more at http://www.eugdpr.org/
0. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/data-collection/... 1. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RICO covers fraud and obstruction of justice, both of which could theoretically apply to Grayball (or not, depending on the facts uncovered).
>obstruction of justice Fair point. Personally I still think this is overreach but I can follow the legal footing on that.
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.
The laws Uber is accused of facilitating the violation of are themselves tyrannical abridgements of personal liberty. The entire exercise, from the local laws to punish Uber drivers, to the DOJ's prosecution of Uber for helping its drivers evade economic persecution, are a disgusting exercise in majority supported tyranny.
This is really big; if they were misusing credit card records like that, they risk losing accreditation from their PCI systems. There is probably some criminal aspect to violating PCI as well. Does anyone here know more about how PCI works?
The laws Uber is accused of facilitating the violation of are themselves tyrannical abridgements of personal liberty. The entire exercise, from the local laws to punish Uber drivers, to the DOJ's prosecution of Uber for helping its drivers evade economic persecution, are a disgusting exercise in majority supported tyranny.