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

461–470 of 596 posts

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

#461

Post by amyjess »

cryptarch wrote: post #411
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…

What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers? Your points relating to Uber stand, I'm just wondering how it'd work in the case of an individual feeling like they are being shadowed.

> What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers?

Then you have your lawyer make that argument in court and try to convince the jury.

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

#462

Post by intopieces »

ausjke wrote: post #432

Austin where I live rejected Uber and it seems that's a right move.

Can you comment on the experience with the alternatives? This rejection happened right after I left, so I have been curious. Austin has a pretty bad DUI problem.

Also, I think it's more accurate to say that Uber rejected Austin, since Austin merely voted in regulation it did not want to comply with.

Is it true that UT-Austin has partnered with the rideshare company (Fasten?) to analyze the ride share data?

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

#463

Post by [deleted] »

s73ver wrote: post #456
grandalf wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good thing though, isn't it?

Not entirely. Adding more middle men isn't a good thing, and depending on the terms for renting the car, they can be obscenely predatory. I know Uber and Lyft's rental terms are pretty shitty.

[deleted]

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

#464

Post by [deleted] »

grandalf wrote: post #458
s73ver wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely. Adding more middle men isn't a good thing, and depending on the terms for renting the car, they can be obscenely predatory. I know Uber and Lyft's rental terms are pretty shitty.

> Adding more middle men isn't a good thing Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you?

[deleted]

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

#465

Post by BearGoesChirp »

th4dv wrote: post #446
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point there is that so few do that the market doesn't respond to capture those who do so. The justification isn't about why, it is about the money in capturing them. Making an offer for people who want to buy cell phones without arbitration, and advertising it so those people know about the option, won't cause a positive return on investment and as such doesn't happen. It is a comment on why 'just go buy from someone who doesn't do it' isn't a solution.

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

#466

Post by bad-joke »

grandalf wrote: post #458
s73ver wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely. Adding more middle men isn't a good thing, and depending on the terms for renting the car, they can be obscenely predatory. I know Uber and Lyft's rental terms are pretty shitty.

> Adding more middle men isn't a good thing Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you?

>Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you?

It's not just about them. These drivers are effectively working for 50% of what other drivers are making. This drives down the median wage for all other drivers, because more middle men will be able to step in and outcompete independent drivers. Overall, you get more people working longer hours for less compensation.

To what end? Who really benefits from this trend?

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

#467

Post by maverick_iceman »

chrismcb wrote: post #298
obstinate wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If a law is "bad" there are essentially two ways to overturn it. One is to go through the legislative body and have it amended. This is difficult and time consuming, and hard for one person to do. The other way is to go to court, and argue that the law is bad. But about the only way to do that is to break the law. This is where civil disobedience comes in. It isn't a get out of jail free card, it is an opportunity to…

Courts can't overthrow bad laws, they can only overthrow unconstitutional laws (or state laws that violate federal laws).

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

#469

Post by MichaelGG »

pimmen89 wrote: post #364
MichaelGG wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like the restaurant suspecting someone of investigating them and giving them a different class of service. The analogy is totally busted though, because these investigators didn't show up at Uber and ask for info, they just went around using the service. Nothing wrong with telling a customer their shrimp plate will be done any minute now and hoping they give up and leave.

Yes there is if you believe that customer to be a health inspector and you move set up your shop somewhere else with the intent of evading said health inspector. See the keyword "intent" there? If your intent with an action is to break the law, the action is illegal.

Of course the intent is to avoid them. Why should that by itself be illegal? If they want to review your business they can do an official inspection. Interfering with an investigation, as long as you don't have an order not to do so (i.e. to preserve evidence or something) should be your freedom.

Now the part that Uber is hiding up someone elses wrongdoing makes a bit more sense, but still seems to be the same kind of thing. If investigators wanted to know, they should have gotten an order against Uber and audited their records.

After all, I encrypt communications. Sometimes with the explicit intent of making sure LE can't see what I've written. Should encryption be interfering? All the people suggesting we wipe devices before crossing a border, is that not the same?

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

#470

Post by Analemma_ »

Zak wrote: post #453
samrap wrote: post #18

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…

Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. I don't see a big problem with it. If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? If it's not OK to do the original thing then that rather than trying to avoid being punished for it is the fundamental issue. I find it a little odd people are upset over this i…

> If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it?

Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obstruction of justice", to disincentivize people from covering up their illegal activities by any means necessary.

Post reply on HN