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

231–240 of 596 posts

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

#231

Post by vadym909 »

will_brown wrote: post #174
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…

Forget software, here in Miami where Uber drivers were initially operating illegally (cited with violating 2 municipal ordinances each being a ~$1,010 civil fine, but escalates to criminal charge after the 3rd such violation) Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at airport take down phone; have drivers sit up front; etc...). I imagine there are similar emails for every county, cit…

pulling an Uber on Uber

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

#232

Post by dpark »

braveo wrote: post #108
dpark wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this is relevant to PCI. PCI is about the security of credit card information. Do you store it safely, is access restricted, etc. I don't think PCI is concerned with whether you're doing ethically shady stuff with the data so long as it's stored and transferred in compliant ways.

If they were using the CC information for nefarious identification I would think that would fall under "is access restricted".

Not really. If someone hands you their credit card and you refuse to sell to them because their card has a Star of David on it, you are doing something nefarious with CC information but not violating PCI.

PCI is concerned with reducing fraud cost. Visa does not care if the business charging your card is shady, only that it doesn't result in extra costs to Visa.

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

#234

Post by mcbits »

openasocket wrote: post #223
MichaelGG wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have money for whatever reason. I pump it through a business of mine, paying taxes, etc. Normally this is totally fine - I'm not using it to commit fraud against investors, I'm paying taxes, etc. The important thing is that no one is being harmed, it's just me seeking some privacy in my own finances, and perhaps losing some money for the privilege (I may be spending post-tax money). Or perhaps it's simpler than tha…

Money laundering is lying on federal documents, claiming your business is making more than it really is. And there's no reason to do it unless you've gotten the money illegally: otherwise you could just report to the IRS why you really have that money. And you suggest people are/should be able to lie on federal forms in the name of privacy?

If it is known (proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that the money was acquired illegally, then mission accomplished. Convict them of the actual crime. If not, then the "crime" of moving money around in unconventional ways does seem pretty bogus - a way to punish someone on a hunch without the hassle of actually producing evidence. Much like when police search for drugs and fail to find anything, so they just take any money they find instead.

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

#235

Post by smt88 »

MichaelGG wrote: post #203
nappy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*as How is money laundering a "fake" crime?

I have money for whatever reason. I pump it through a business of mine, paying taxes, etc. Normally this is totally fine - I'm not using it to commit fraud against investors, I'm paying taxes, etc. The important thing is that no one is being harmed, it's just me seeking some privacy in my own finances, and perhaps losing some money for the privilege (I may be spending post-tax money). Or perhaps it's simpler than tha…

I don't think you understand what money laundering is.

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

#236

Post by grandalf »

paulsutter wrote: post #221
grandalf wrote: post #144

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 te…

Lyft isn't facing a DOJ investigation

Lyft lagged in new markets and allowed Uber to establish the driver pool and consumer awareness.

I'd say Lyft is a completely different investment than Uber. Lyft has made smart decisions but is generally "drafting" behind Uber. I'm not an investor in either, but one is good at leading, the other is good at following.

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

#237

Post by DannyBee »

HappyTypist wrote: post #212
DannyBee wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie." In the case i'm aware of, law enforcement was investigating criminal violations of local ordinances by unlicensed uber drivers. While i'm sure not a felony, that's definitely a criminal investigation they were seeking to stymie.

Those were all civil, not criminal.

Errr, the ordinances in question made it a misdemeanor with an X$ fine. Those are criminal, not civil. Example: http://www.local10.com/news/key-west-police-arrest-unlicense...

"Operating without the required licenses is a second-degree misdemeanor. Illegal drivers face a fine of up to $500 and/or 60 days in jail."

I'm not sure why you believe they are civil. They pretty much never are.

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

#238

Post by openasocket »

mcbits wrote: post #234
openasocket wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money laundering is lying on federal documents, claiming your business is making more than it really is. And there's no reason to do it unless you've gotten the money illegally: otherwise you could just report to the IRS why you really have that money. And you suggest people are/should be able to lie on federal forms in the name of privacy?

If it is known (proven beyond a reasonable doubt) that the money was acquired illegally, then mission accomplished. Convict them of the actual crime. If not, then the "crime" of moving money around in unconventional ways does seem pretty bogus - a way to punish someone on a hunch without the hassle of actually producing evidence. Much like when police search for drugs and fail to find anything, so they just take any…

Often the actual laundering process is done by a third party who takes a cut. A middleman who provides money laundering as a service to criminals. Under your scheme that person wouldn't be committing a crime and could not be prosecuted.

But that's beside the point. The crime isn't "moving money around in unconventional ways," it's lying to the IRS and other government agencies. It's signing your name on all those tax documents that say "under penalty of perjury" after filling them in with false information.

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

#239

Post by tim333 »

orblivion wrote: post #225
gotothedoctor wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the confusion/maybe I should have separated that into several points & or not sought to respond to the corporations are people comment I was certain I'd get before it was even said:) I'll try to unpack it but I may just make it worse.. 1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of thi…

Just for the sake of discussion: What about Silk Road? I would say that's a legitimate case of a company (of sorts) engaging in civil disobedience. Ross Ulbricht was ideologically motivated. I've heard some rumors about Travis' ideology. Maybe he's similar. (He named his company Uber, maybe he's some sort of Nietzschean?)

It didn't work out well for Ross but then drug trafficking is a whole different thing from providing a taxi service.

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

#240

Post by DannyBee »

pyre wrote: post #217
MichaelGG wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime? Technically the law breakers are the Uber drivers , no? If so, then Uber is aiding them avoiding the cops.

Exactly.
Post reply on HN