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

141–150 of 596 posts

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

#141

Post by MichaelGG »

SilasX wrote: post #124
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.

Yes, Uber does have the right to remove you from their service, for mostly any reason -- probably even because they think you're a "narc". But Greyball went way beyond that, and actively misled "suspicious" (probably sting agent) users into thinking cars would come, when they never did, wasting their time. That crosses over into interfering with an investigation -- the combination of "wasting someone's time" and "bec…

What if I think investigators are following me, so I get a friend to drive my car around all day, "wasting" their time. Am I now guilty of a crime? Seems like Uber did the same kinda thing.

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

#142

Post by MichaelGG »

bduerst wrote: post #138
analogist wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would be fine with your local restaurant "denying service" and locking the doors only when the food safety inspectors show up?

What they're talking about is a red herring. This is more analogous to the food safety inspectors showing up, and Uber intentionally leading them to a different restaurant's kitchen - always, even when the inspector isn't there to officially inspect them.

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.

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

#143

Post by bronson »

DannyBee wrote: post #72
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?

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by,…

> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible

Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.

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

#144

Post by grandalf »

Edit: Please don't down-vote this. Up-vote it and argue articulately against it!

The only thing more embarrassing for authorities than having propped up a corrupt medallion taxi system for decades is this sort of probe.

In order to disrupt the corrupt medallion system it took billions of dollars and algorithms to evade the officials who had been tasked by the corrupt medallion industry to leverage small compliance technicalities to sabotage Uber in specific markets.

Every municipality that had a medallion system that was disrupted by Uber was effectively humiliated. Uber revealed just how inefficient and profligate those systems are.

The quality of car service everywhere Uber serves is supremely better than it had been before Uber. We can now get a car in minutes and see the ETA update as the driver approaches.

So many of us found it infuriating to call 333-TAXI (or equivalent) and be told "5 to 30 minutes" no matter how much demand was going on. Then when the cab failed to show up after 40 minutes, a follow-up call would yield "it should be another 5 to 30 minutes" after which the operator would simply hang up.

It took Uber's vision (and YC's vision in supporting it) to move the world forward into the future. We should all realize that the officials Uber had to fool using its algorithms were the foot soldiers of backwardness and corruption.

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

#145

Post by TheCoelacanth »

bogositosius wrote: post #21
tyingq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RICO laws are pretty broad.

True. But considering RICO's original intent, investigating a software company for evading draconian local taxi regulations seems out of scope.

The whole point of RICO is to allow the feds to intervene when the criminal organization is too large and powerful for local governments to be able to effectively prosecute them. This is exactly what RICO was designed for.

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

#146

Post by MichaelGG »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #112
sushid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of Uber, but if there are LEOs trying to use your product fraudulently (e.g. fake data, ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars), doesn't it make sense to try and stop this sort of operation? If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?

A blind != a hologram projecting a false image while you do something illegal inside.

But even that would be OK wouldn't it? Writing "Flour" on a bag before putting contraband powder in it shouldn't be illegal.

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

#147

Post by TheCoelacanth »

bogositosius wrote: post #40
kevan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those local officials were issuing arbitrary fines and illegally impounding cars I'd agree with you. But they weren't. Those local officials were enforcing the laws of their jurisdictions, which Uber was trying to circumvent.

So let the local officials bring a case.

I would be fine with that, but there's no reason that the federal government shouldn't also bring a RICO case for obstruction of justice.

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

#148

Post by mahyarm »

ianamartin wrote: post #136

Kalanick must have known this was on its way when he backed out of the Code Conference a few days ago. Even with just the events of the last few months, he was already going to be on the hot seat facing Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg. And you know neither of them were going to pull any punches. John Gruber quipped that cancelling that interview was probably the smartest thing Kalanick has done in a while. I see that…

I too would not like to go to a party where the host doesn't like me and has an asshole reputation.

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

#149

Post by MichaelGG »

DannyBee wrote: post #72
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?

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by,…

But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? Surely if an unidentified police officer comes up and asks you something, lying to them can't be illegal.

Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?

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

#150

Post by dsfyu404ed »

bronson wrote: post #143
DannyBee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by,…

> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.

5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.
Post reply on HN