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

371–380 of 596 posts

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

#371

Post by ForHackernews »

dorgo wrote: post #344
pyre wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that they are attempting to investigate you, and you intend to lead them on a wild goose chase, then it would be obstruction of justice. The word mincing that you're trying to do here is like trying to claim that murdering someone is just "moving some molecules around" and "moving molecules around isn't illegal." If you put into action a plan that's intent is to mislead investigators that you believe a…

So it doesn't really matter what I do. If I have the intention to obstruct justice then I can stay at home and act criminally by doing so? Nice one. At this point I'm sure I'm a criminal. I don't know what my crime is, but I'm sure layers will tell me before they throw me into jail.

It does matter what you do. Criminal law recognizes two elements to a crime:

mens rea ("guilty mind") and actus reus ("guilty act")

http://law.jrank.org/pages/22506/Criminal-Law-Elements-Crime...

If there's no actus reus in your example, then there's no crime.

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

#372

Post by TeMPOraL »

memmcgee wrote: post #322
chrisper wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. 2 or 3 years ago I posted how I dislike Uber as they are shady and unethical and how some of the drivers do unethical stuff as well. Got downvoted every time because "cab drivers don' do that?"

Exactly. People like Uber for "breaking the taxi cab monopoly"... by building their own monopoly.

Yes. And to pile on the "I told you so" stack, I also have been saying here for years that Uber is actually worse and the way they're fighting the "taxi mafia" implies that we'll be worse off when they win.

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

#373

Post by abalashov »

pvg wrote: post #132
mahyarm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think there's a great deal of mental fun to be had thinking about formal and informal social rules as some sort of underhanded C contest. But you can't lose sight of the fact it's not how such rules are generally applied in reality. The intent of the rule and the intent of the potential rule-breaker matter a lot.

This. I've found discussing law with programmers a frustrating experience more often than not. Yes, I'm impressed that your pedantic mind has found all the logical and definitional loopholes, but now back to the real world, where that's just not going to fly with a judge or in any other context where high-level intent and psychological deliberation is considered.

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

#374

Post by TeMPOraL »

bogositosius wrote: post #291
npizzolato wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Why it can be made a federal issue has been successfully outlined by others in this thread. Misleading investigators throughout multiple cities, however, isn't the reason.

It seems to be when it's coordinated by single organization across state lines. That's what turns it from a series of totally unrelated crimes in different states into one nation-wide criminal operation.

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

#375

Post by akerro »

nostromo wrote: post #44

I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.) If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that. And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.

>I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service.

No, they have to provide service to everyone, equally. Imagine a situation: a cake store decides not to prepare a cake for gay wedding.

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

#376

Post by pfortuny »

xixi77 wrote: post #45

What exactly part of this is criminal? I mean, isn't any business free to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they like (for example government employees, hackers, or Democrats), as long as they are not in one of several protected categories like sex/race/national origin/etc.? Or is this violating consumer privacy laws when CC info is used this way?

It depends on how you can get that information, though. Recall that we are talking about a corporation, not a physical person.

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

#377

Post by qb45 »

memmcgee wrote: post #300
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.

One of the purposes of making money laundering a crime is that it makes it possible to investigate other crimes. You know the mob is making money and you know they're moving that money around somehow. Making money laundering a crime gives investigators a place to start their investigations. If they think a laundromat is a front for the mob, they can prove that by counting how many people are using it and comparing th…

And thusly we went full-circle back to the OP:

Now LE comes along and says, gee whiz, our jobs are really hard having to catch criminals doing criminal stuff. You know, let's make it illegal to use your money as you like, to have any sort of privacy in your transactions. Tada, now they can just go after people for moving money around.

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

#378

Post by NumberCruncher »

kartickv wrote: post #332
avar wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order for this metaphor to work it would have to be a chain of pizza parlors in many states, and it wouldn't have been the owner who answered the phone, but any number of employees trained by the company to react this way to their local city inspectors.

Why is it okay for the owner to do this, but not an employee? Why is it okay if you have just one shop rather than a chain?

I am not a lawyer but in jurisdiction there may be a slight difference between crime and organized crime like between selling drugs on the street and leading a drug smuggling cartel. And training your employees how to break law could be also prosecuted.

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

#379

Post by avar »

roel_v wrote: post #370
avar wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but let's say for example that some guy X publishes embarrassing classified information on a protest sign that he's holding in front of the White House, this could be construed as civil disobedience, right? But it couldn't if Google had the same information and published it on its front page, since it's a corporation. 1. But what if guy X publishes it on his personal blog? 2. What if he occasionally sells used…

" this could be construed as civil disobedience, right?" "when civil disobedience stops being a defense." This is the core of your misunderstanding - 'civil disobedience' is never a 'defense'. At best, a judge can take it into account come sentencing time. There is no such thing as a generic 'if you are ideologically motivated, you're off the hook' rule. Private or legal person, doesn't matter.

I misphrased that, I shouldn't have said defense but when a defendant could expect leniency on that basis.

With that caveat my question still stands, `gotothedoctor` is , if I understand him correctly, saying that corporations like Uber can't expect that sort of leniency, but what about other not-quite-just-a-person entities?

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

#380

Post by Broken_Hippo »

avar wrote: post #316
xanderjanz wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a better metaphor. If a local city inspector is looking to catch a pizza shop selling liquor without a special license, and calls to order beer, the shop owner recognizes the caller ID, lies, and says he doesn't sell beer right now but he should call back tomorrow. But then later, the town votes to remove the special license requirement. Did the pizza shop obstruct justice?

In order for this metaphor to work it would have to be a chain of pizza parlors in many states, and it wouldn't have been the owner who answered the phone, but any number of employees trained by the company to react this way to their local city inspectors.

I'd think it would be more involved: They have an answering system that recognizes the caller ID. The IVR is set up to have an automated announcement report that the store doesn't sell alcohol or even that they are closed, and then produces a special ringtone, if the call goes through at all.

They claim it is to circumvent fraud (folks ordering pizza and not paying) and bad payments and the like as a cover. And it isn't just a local pizza place: This is a nationwide chain doing such actions.

Edit: Addtionally, employees would be trained to avoid such situations.

Post reply on HN