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

151–160 of 596 posts

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

#151

Post by sqeaky »

nebabyte wrote: post #109
sqeaky wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree they Should be culpable, but whether or not they Would is the decision that is actually above our paygrade.

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, please consider that starting a post with "Wrong" is not polite and not conducive to meaningful discussion. It also doesn't make you any more or less correct.

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

#152

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

dangero wrote: post #70
pvg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was forcing Uber to do anything. They were trying to deny agents of public regulatory bodies the ability to assess them. That isn't any kind of 'right'.

"right" is a moral judgement. It depends on whether you see this as civil disobedience. It may be "right" and also illegal at the same time.

If you look at civil disobedience as practiced by Martin Luther King, Jr and Gandhi, it was to highlight injustice by disobeying the law in question, and then accepting the full consequences of breaking the law. Breaking a law you dont like, doing shady things to avoid getting caught, and raising billions in investments is not at like civil disobedience and only cheapens the real civil disobedience that addressed great injustice at great personal cost to the people involved.

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

#153

Post by MichaelGG »

Mtinie wrote: post #79
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…

So if supported allegations of rampant corporate sexism and sexual harassment[1][2], legally suspect actions during corporate events[3], the "Greyball" toolkit[4], departure of at least seven high-level executives in recent months[5], a tone-deaf and self-aggravating CEO[6], financial analysts pointing out the massive scope of investor subsidies and lack of profit opportunities[7], and questionable classifications of…

For me, it was the redesign. Travis talking about how picking a corporate colour scheme was a "process of self discovery" was just too much SV nonsense. Atoms and Bits indeed.

Also didn't help they ran a big article about leaving Postgres because they couldn't assume their engineers understand DB transactions. Their example, IIRC, was a dev sending an email inside of a DB transaction​ and not knowing this would consume resources and cause contention. Normalising that kind of incompetency isn't positive.

But hey, in Guatemala I've got no alternative and Uber works great and is far safer than a taxi, so hey...

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

#154

Post by gertef »

MichaelGG wrote: post #141
SilasX wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice#Obstruc...

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

#155

Post by ianamartin »

mahyarm wrote: post #148
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.

Just because someone is willing to tear you a new asshole doesn't mean that person is an asshole.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who think of either one of them as assholes.

You sound like Trump or Spicer. "Wahhhh. You asked a hard question! I don't like you any more! Go away!"

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

#156

Post by xixi77 »

tyingq wrote: post #63
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?

I think if greyball popped a "sorry, access denied" message there wouldn't be much controversy. It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.

But the employees in question didn't even identify themselves as such, did they? Like, if a random person on the street asks you what's your name etc., are you required to answer truthfully just because that person could be an undercover officer? Or even if you strongly suspect he could be one?

I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right...

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

#157

Post by nradov »

MichaelGG wrote: post #141
SilasX wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the prosecutor is able to prove intent and you had committed some other crime as well then yes, you and your friend could potentially both be convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice. This isn't some kind of game; judges don't look favorably on defendants playing tricks.

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

#158

Post by Mtinie »

MichaelGG wrote: post #153
Mtinie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if supported allegations of rampant corporate sexism and sexual harassment[1][2], legally suspect actions during corporate events[3], the "Greyball" toolkit[4], departure of at least seven high-level executives in recent months[5], a tone-deaf and self-aggravating CEO[6], financial analysts pointing out the massive scope of investor subsidies and lack of profit opportunities[7], and questionable classifications of…

For me, it was the redesign. Travis talking about how picking a corporate colour scheme was a "process of self discovery" was just too much SV nonsense. Atoms and Bits indeed. Also didn't help they ran a big article about leaving Postgres because they couldn't assume their engineers understand DB transactions. Their example, IIRC, was a dev sending an email inside of a DB transaction​ and not knowing this would consu…

    > But hey, in Guatemala I've got no alternative and Uber works great and is far safer than a taxi, so hey...
No local upstart competitors that are worth supporting?

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

#159

Post by hackuser »

> If a ride request was deemed illegitimate, Uber's app showed bogus information and the requester would not be picked up, the employees told Reuters.

Ignoring the illegality of interfering with law enforcement, this is bad customer service. Not only would I resent the invasion of privacy, but that algorithm is going to have a meaningful number of false-positives. It's a crappy way to deal with customers - if you think there's a problem, tell them you are denying service.

It's hard to imagine another business doing this. Does a restaurant just not bring food? An online store just not send the clothes? I know you are thinking about shadowbanning, which I also think is crappy, but at least it's much less consequential.

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

#160

Post by tyingq »

xixi77 wrote: post #156
tyingq wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if greyball popped a "sorry, access denied" message there wouldn't be much controversy. It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.

But the employees in question didn't even identify themselves as such, did they? Like, if a random person on the street asks you what's your name etc., are you required to answer truthfully just because that person could be an undercover officer? Or even if you strongly suspect he could be one? I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right...

Uber targeted them specifically though, via geofencing, bin numbers that matched leo credit unions, etc.

They sought out LEO people, tagged them, and served up misleading data to them, for the obvious purpose of evading them and wasting their time.

Your analogy doesn't match what happened. Try one where you seek out someone you research first, believe is an LEO, and then deliberately lead them away from something they might think is criminal or some other violation.

Post reply on HN