Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by BearGoesChirp » Fri, May 05, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

ckastner wrote: post #320

padiyar83 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports and city councils. And UBER does provide a valuable service to its users. I hate to go back to the days of having to call a yellow taxi cab to take me to the airport and then wonder if they would show up in time or not. //corrected a typo

How does that justify the alleged obstruction of justice?

Morally, it is a question of if the legal system is delivering justice or not. Obstructing the legal system when it fails to provide justice is not obstructing justice in a number of moral or ethical views.

Consider a case where the legal system was attempting to enforce property rights involving slavery and an individual obstructed the system. Many would consider this justified obstruction of justice because they are morally opposed to what the legal system is trying to do. (I'm not trying to say what Uber is doing is anything like the example I gave, I was only trying to give an extreme example where many readers would at least see how people would feel it justified the obstruction of justice.)

Legally, it doesn't at all.

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

#442

Post by BearGoesChirp » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

th4dv wrote: post #348

mschuster91 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> drivers are forced to purchase a medallion In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day. > and abide by other silly regulations Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones: - cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have…

> Regulations usually exist for good reasons It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).

And we end up with almost every single contract including the opt out language. The majority of people don't read contracts, and many of those who do have no access to recourse to do anything other than walking away from the entire field of services. (While in theory the market should fix this by having service offers without those clauses that people who read their contract and walk away from bad ones can use, the total number who are willing to walk away are far too smaller.)

For example, look at arbitration in the US.

Want a retirement account? Arbitration clause.

Bank account? Arbitration clause.

Cell phone contract? Arbitration clause.

Insurance? Arbitration clause.

Online video game account? Arbitration clause.

And most people don't realize how one sided these are until they end up on the wrong end of the legal system.

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

#443

Post by metaphorm » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:07 PM UTC

padiyar83 wrote: post #296

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…

But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports and city councils. And UBER does provide a valuable service to its users. I hate to go back to the days of having to call a yellow taxi cab to take me to the airport and then wonder if they would show up in time or not. //corrected a typo

the U.S. is a constitutional republic and is governed by the rule of law. if a law is unfair, the constitutional remedy for it is the legislative process, not breaking the law.

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

#444

Post by turc1656 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

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…

While I am not a lawyer like you, I think there is reason to believe #1 may not necessarily as straightforward as it seems. At minimum, there can definitely be a case made to support Uber.

Evasion generally has to do with mandatory liabilities and provisions. For example - tax avoidance and evasion. It's legal to plan your activities to avoid incurring a tax. It's illegal to take an action that results in a tax liability and then not pay it or attempt to hide it.

For me, what Uber did is akin to avoiding roads that are known speed traps. Yes, Uber is required to obey the laws of the jurisdiction they are in, but they are also able to deny service to anyone for any reason so long as that reason does not fall under a protected class (age, race, gender, etc.). Refusing service for being a suspected member of law enforcement is allowed. Just as certain small businesses provide discounts to law enforcement in appreciation of their service, others can refuse to serve them.

The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal. It sounds to me (and has been stated elsewhere) that many of the jurisdictions where this was being used have unclear or incomplete ride-sharing and booking laws. This would make the activities by Uber up for legal debate, just like the Uber legal battle in CA on whether to classify drivers as employees or contractors. If there's not a consensus or existing legal precedent that a specific activity is illegal, you can't say that their activity is evasion because the activity they are trying to "hide" hasn't been ruled in court to actually be illegal because this situation is still relatively new and hasn't been adjudicated on yet. Once we have a decision by the courts on the underlying activity, then yes, using Greyball to avoid authorities would be illegal.

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

#445

Post by zjaffee » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:40 PM UTC

laser wrote: post #327

naskwo wrote: post #293

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…

I generally agree with your sentiment, but just to give another perspective I thought I should point out that there's a significant difference between those that can afford to travel to Europe and hail a ride from a "professionally licensed driver", and those that can afford to spend $3.41* to pool home from Boston to Cambridge at 2:30am on a Thursday night, with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few e…

Additionally, in smaller American markets, Uber is simply where the drivers are. Lyft's are almost always 15 minutes away, and because of that, they will always have surge pricing where Uber might not.

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

#446

Post by th4dv » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #442

th4dv wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulations usually exist for good reasons It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).

And we end up with almost every single contract including the opt out language. The majority of people don't read contracts, and many of those who do have no access to recourse to do anything other than walking away from the entire field of services. (While in theory the market should fix this by having service offers without those clauses that people who read their contract and walk away from bad ones can use, the t…

> the total number who are willing to walk away are far too smaller

Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.

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

#447

Post by e28eta » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:48 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31

eridius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why haven't you quit yet? There's been more ugly stuff coming out about Uber over the past few years than basically the entire of the rest of the tech industry combined.

I mean, we can say "It's wrong for you to keep using the thing on your phone that's installed and works," but all that will do is make people conceal that they still use Uber. A better approach might be an anecdote: My friend actually made the switch to Lyft, and apparently it's just as quick and effective as Uber. She hasn't had any complaints as far as I know.

I've had ethical qualms about Uber for a long time, but I've always gotten good service.

Unfortunately, I had a Lyft experience that really turned me off. They matched me with a driver who was 5-10 minutes away (I believe he was at Millbrae BART). He messaged to ask where I was going, and then once I responded he moved his car slightly farther away from me, and then parked it. We waited ~10 mins. He was unable or unwilling to cancel the ride that he wouldn't give us, wouldn't respond back to me, and Lyft customer support didn't seem to care.

It was infuriating. Either do a better job matching, lower the penalties for drivers canceling, or enforce the same/worse penalties for refusing to pick up. If the driver's best course of action is to ignore your customer, you have a problem. Maybe that's changed since then, but it's not necessarily a good thing for consumers that drivers say they prefer Lyft.

I use both, infrequently, and rationalize it because my rides are being subsidized by investors. I think short of dramatic leadership changes, Uber can't fix their corruption. I'm hoping they run out of investors willing to give them cash, or they're disrupted by something even better. As long as they have the best product, I think they'll continue to grow.

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

#448

Post by AlexandrB » Fri, May 05, 2017, 3:53 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #436

laughingman2 wrote: post #318

Lots of Anarcho-Kapitalists drunk on Ayn Rand Kool Aid. Travis is a criminal who has marketed his breaking of labor laws, civil laws as "disruption". Maybe this is what will happen you get billions of investment dollars without earning through old fashioned way of making profits. Financialism has blinded America.

The laws in question are tyrannical infringements of personal liberty. You don't have a right to prohibit people from trading a service for money.

So based on your comment the following are "tyrannical infringements of personal liberty":

* laws against child labor

* laws against prostitution

* minimum wage laws

* background check laws

As these all prohibit some subset of people from trading a service for money. My question is: would repealing any of these laws actually affect you or your job? I'm guessing not.

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

#449

Post by sqeaky » Fri, May 05, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #151

nebabyte wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. There is no "should be vs. would be" dance here. It's spelled out in black and white in your employee agreement.

Not all people, not even all programmers, sign specific agreements. I have taken programming jobs only signing tax documents. EDIT - I also wouldn't expect something as flimsy as a piece of paper to actually protect me my the likes of Steve Kalanick. He seems like the type to screw anyone over if he can gain from it. If I were those programmers I would get a laywer no matter what any agreement said. For the future, p…

If you must downvote me, please leave a comment and tell me why. If you don't tell me why, I must presume it is because my line of reasoning was correct, but hurt your feelings .

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

#450

Post by arzt » Fri, May 05, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

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…

Has another consumer tech company with any visibility ever been charged under RICO?