Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#1

Post by nstoddar » Thu, May 28, 2015, 2:02 AM UTC

Uber Engineers in San Francisco would have tried to remotely encrypt the data in the Uber Canada computers during the search conducted by Revenu Québec in Montreal last week.

This is what is alleged by Revenu Québec in the information that was filed before Judge Jean-Pierre Braun last week, and that La Presse has obtained. Uber sought to challenge this statement before the judge, but has not had the opportunity, we learn in the injunction Uber also presented in court last week.

Search for Uber Canada offices

On May 14, fifteen Revenu Québec investigators conducted searches of computer data to administrative offices Uber Canada Notre Dame. Investigators are looking for evidence to demonstrate qu'Uber Canada is violating the tax law by not collecting GST and QST on behalf of its drivers to UberX.

Around 10:40, one of the investigators found that "mobile devices such as laptops, smart phones and tablets have been restarted remotely" during the seizure. Another investigator, who performed a second term in another office, found exactly the same phenomenon, also at 10:40. "IT systems were handled remotely, we performed an IT asset takeover by putting off considering the urgency and high risk remote data change," reads the information presented to Judge Jean-Pierre Braun.

Also according to the denunciation, the CEO of Uber Montreal, Jean-Nicolas Guillemette said later at one of the investigators "that he discussed with the engineers Technology Uber San Francisco and that they had encrypted the Remote data ".

source:http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-affaires-criminelles/actualites-judiciaires/201505/26/01-4872822-saisie-chez-uber-des-donnees-auraient-ete-modifiees-a-distance.php

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#2

Post by greenyoda » Thu, May 28, 2015, 2:16 AM UTC

See also the discussion of the original French version:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9615498

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#3

Post by zorpner » Thu, May 28, 2015, 2:47 AM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #2

See also the discussion of the original French version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9615498

It was pretty inventive to use English-language as a reason to kill the post (it's not actually part of the guidelines, of course, it's just that almost no non-English posts get upvoted to the front page).

Clearly, it would have been straightforward to replace the link with an automated translation and allow the discussion to continue.

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#4

Post by perfTerm » Thu, May 28, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #3

greenyoda wrote: post #2

See also the discussion of the original French version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9615498

It was pretty inventive to use English-language as a reason to kill the post (it's not actually part of the guidelines, of course, it's just that almost no non-English posts get upvoted to the front page). Clearly, it would have been straightforward to replace the link with an automated translation and allow the discussion to continue.

The thing is automatated translations are often awful to read. Hackernews is probably better off waiting for a native speaker to write up something about it because the article will maintain the interest of greater numbers of people

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#5

Post by late2part » Thu, May 28, 2015, 3:58 AM UTC

If indeed Uber personnel actively encrypted their data after it was seized, this brings up an interesting question!

If your property is stolen and taken without your permission, and you can control it - why aren't you entitled to destroy it?

I suppose it depends on the legality and force of the order to seize; but if it did not include an order to the owner, I posit they were within their natural rights to delete their data.

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#6

Post by spacehome » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

late2part wrote: post #5

If indeed Uber personnel actively encrypted their data after it was seized, this brings up an interesting question! If your property is stolen and taken without your permission, and you can control it - why aren't you entitled to destroy it? I suppose it depends on the legality and force of the order to seize; but if it did not include an order to the owner, I posit they were within their natural rights to delete the…

The really clever way to encrypt your drives is to make the passphrase for the drive decrypt a very small (512-bit) header that contains the decryption key for the rest of the drive. Then wiping the drive consists of just erasing those critical bits quickly.

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#7

Post by greenyoda » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:16 AM UTC

late2part wrote: post #5

If indeed Uber personnel actively encrypted their data after it was seized, this brings up an interesting question! If your property is stolen and taken without your permission, and you can control it - why aren't you entitled to destroy it? I suppose it depends on the legality and force of the order to seize; but if it did not include an order to the owner, I posit they were within their natural rights to delete the…

Property being seized under a legitimate search warrant is very different from property being stolen. Trying to hide property or documents from a legal seizure can result in criminal charges such as obstruction of justice.

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#8

Post by contingencies » Thu, May 28, 2015, 4:48 AM UTC

spacehome wrote: post #6

late2part wrote: post #5

If indeed Uber personnel actively encrypted their data after it was seized, this brings up an interesting question! If your property is stolen and taken without your permission, and you can control it - why aren't you entitled to destroy it? I suppose it depends on the legality and force of the order to seize; but if it did not include an order to the owner, I posit they were within their natural rights to delete the…

The really clever way to encrypt your drives is to make the passphrase for the drive decrypt a very small (512-bit) header that contains the decryption key for the rest of the drive. Then wiping the drive consists of just erasing those critical bits quickly.

Except that erasure on modern drives rarely actually erases things...

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#9

Post by akhatri_aus » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:07 AM UTC

late2part wrote: post #5

If indeed Uber personnel actively encrypted their data after it was seized, this brings up an interesting question! If your property is stolen and taken without your permission, and you can control it - why aren't you entitled to destroy it? I suppose it depends on the legality and force of the order to seize; but if it did not include an order to the owner, I posit they were within their natural rights to delete the…

And if it's not stolen and seized using a legal warrant and you're not permitted to control it?

Re: Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]

#10

Post by dang » Thu, May 28, 2015, 6:12 AM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #3

greenyoda wrote: post #2

See also the discussion of the original French version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9615498

It was pretty inventive to use English-language as a reason to kill the post (it's not actually part of the guidelines, of course, it's just that almost no non-English posts get upvoted to the front page). Clearly, it would have been straightforward to replace the link with an automated translation and allow the discussion to continue.

It's not inventive. It has been a rule here since the beginning. I know that because pg told me.

The guidelines don't pretend to be exhaustive.