291–300 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what?
So they misled investigators throughout multiple cities across the United States. Therefore, it's a federal issue. This really isn't that hard to understand.
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.
Brilliant. I was able to summon a car within minutes, and this app also allows for paying via the app.
Uber's biggest threat is, IMO, the creation of a well-working "push to ride & pay" taxi app by other countries that are as similarly well organised as Germany.
For me as a consumer, I could care less if I download Uber or EUTaxi. As long as I get my ride on time, and with a professionally licensed driver.
Last weekend, I visited Hamburg with my wife. I was surprised when I was told that I couldn't catch an Uber. However, on each German taxi (you know, the beige ones) there was a sticker prompting me to download the "EUTaxi" (or similarly named) app, which I did. Brilliant. I was able to summon a car within minutes, and this app also allows for paying via the app. Uber's biggest threat is, IMO, the creation of a well-w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits.
As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important.
At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
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…
//corrected a typo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, just for the sake of fun/discussion. Not trying to make any significant point here. > You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Is this a point of observation ("I've never heard of a company doing this"), law ("Companies have no legal grounds to claim civil disobedience"), or logic ("companies cannot act, only its constituent humans act")? If it's the first, I'm claiming to g…
It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment. While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liab…
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…
> 2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise. This point seems out of place to me. To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the sam…
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…
2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise. Why do people still argue that? It makes no sense to me, even as a non-lawyer (but I've watched People's Court :)) Otherwise El Chapo could be arguing the same, I b…
(Goes without saying that Uber's attempts to make their VCs happy are weak tea in comparison, yeah?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.