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

251–260 of 596 posts

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

#251

Post by openasocket »

mcbits wrote: post #246
openasocket wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If someone commits perjury, convict them of perjury. There's no need to invent yet another crime. But I suspect it's not perjury. If a laundromat has an extra $500k of income and reports it as income, paying all relevant taxes, then so be it. If there is proof that the money came from criminal activity, then convict someone of that crime. Otherwise it's just a hunch.

Making it a crime serves as a deterrent for illegal activity. So when you prove the money came from criminal activity you can convict them for the criminal activity and the money laundering.

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

#252

Post by gotothedoctor »

grandalf wrote: post #207
gotothedoctor wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true. So what? If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app, its neither that protectable or even all that innovative. Afterall Google was the 11st search engine. Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it r…

> for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true It is :) > If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry. > its neither that protectable or even all that innovative Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself . Once this was in p…

It seems we disagree on too many facts.

Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it.

Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the same cars are already and would still be available on Lyft & the taxi co's apps. And only time'll tell whether Uber matters.

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

#253

Post by xiphias »

srbl wrote: post #243
orblivion wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

For what it's worth, Ross Ulbricht also paid to have 5 people killed. (They of course were not killed, because it was part of the larger sting, but that's irrelevant to his repugnant behavior)

No, he didn't pay. It was a fake chatlog created by the investigators to make him look worse than what he did.

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

#254

Post by wav-part »

openasocket wrote: post #226
wav-part wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEO interacting with an app is not same as if it was a person. LEO is not conducting an interview with Uber when he uses the app. UX is not legally accountable response. To whom even Miranda warning will apply to ?

Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody. The fact that it's an App is irrelevant: the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.

> Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody.

Or in a custodial interrogation as per wikipedia[1]. My point is not every interaction, even if you are a person, is a custodial interrogation. I can stop talking. I can move away. Or even joke (Not recommended). It would not have any legal repercussions. LEO has to warn me the mode of interaction has been changed to serious from courteous.

> the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.

First, the purpose and intentions are allegations yet to be proven in court.

What I guess the Uber can say is these features are design to deny serivce to all LEOs wheather they are on investigations or not. Uber cannot even know if some investigation is taking place. Which I can empathize with. No one wants LEOs up in their shxt if they legally can avoid them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

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

#255

Post by openasocket »

MichaelGG wrote: post #248
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?

What lie is required? You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS. Where's the lie? Edit: Keep in mind if your original money you evaded taxes on, that's already a crime. As is committing crimes, if that's how you got the money. "Laundering" is just a non-crime used to make LE's job easy, expanding power and reducing privacy. AML and KYC laws are…

> You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS.

So, assuming that money isn't illicitly gotten, I'm pretty sure that's not money laundering.

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

#256

Post by wordupmaking »

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?)

I see as much connection there as I see between Scooters' "Hyper Hyper" and, say, "some sort of" ancient greek philosophy.

Just look at these superfluous! They acquire riches and yet they become poorer. They want power and first of all the crowbar of power, much money – these impotent, impoverished ones!

I can't tell you what exactly "Nietzschean" would be, but I think that in this and any neighboring contexts it's like talking about having lit fire underwater; some may have confused some sort of reflection with actual fire, but Nietzsche never set and never will set foot in any of these parts. Having been discerned and discarded by him is the only sort of business Nietzsche and any random shareholder value maximizing CEO will ever have. I don't pretend to know or understand Nietzsche at all, but the "worst" that could happen is that someone proves me wrong with Nietzsche quotes, so I'll just claim it and see what happens.

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

#257

Post by gotothedoctor »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #244
gotothedoctor wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my read of that case & I don't think it applies here regardless. as per above, Uber is a company, so it can't engage in civil disobedience--thus there need be no concern that RICO "could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience." Basically, in 2003, a very different SCOTUS said sorry Planned Parenthood, but, actually Operation Rescue, as awful & harassing as they are, are not committing EXTORT…

I'm not arguing that it applies in this case, I'm just responding to parent's statement that "To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the same crime otherwise." I'm saying that many penalties take motive into consideration, and SC expressed concern about expanding motive in RICO cases in a way that could be applied to civil disobedience.

OK. I replied the parent comment to explain that issue above.

Regardless, SCOTUS did not, as you claim, "express concern about expanding motive in RICO cases".

On a very different court, RBG wrote a concurrence, explaining that she voted against Planned Parenthood because she was concerned with the precedent of charging Operation Rescue with extortion, under RICO. Motive is not the issue (nor was it relevant in that case)--RICO...& charging the defendants with extortion, as a basis for RICO prosecution is.

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

#258

Post by Cacti »

tyingq wrote: post #160
xixi77 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Wow, I didn't realize it went that far. They are in deep shit.

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

#259

Post by orblivion »

gotothedoctor wrote: post #242
orblivion wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished? When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted l…

Again, just for the sake of fun/discussion. Not trying to make any significant point here.

> You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience.

Is this a point of observation ("I've never heard of a company doing this"), law ("Companies have no legal grounds to claim civil disobedience"), or logic ("companies cannot act, only its constituent humans act")?

If it's the first, I'm claiming to give you a contradictory observation. If it's the second, you yourself said that civil disobedience has no legal significance anyway (just a possible source of sympathy when it comes time for the judge's discretion) so in this sense I don't see why a human's civil disobedience is any more real than a company's. If it's the third, fair enough, but it wasn't clear to me that this was your point.

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

#260

Post by orblivion »

srbl wrote: post #243
orblivion wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

For what it's worth, Ross Ulbricht also paid to have 5 people killed. (They of course were not killed, because it was part of the larger sting, but that's irrelevant to his repugnant behavior)

From the story I've vaguely heard, he considered them ideologically defensible. But, at that point I guess it's not particularly civil. (or maybe I missed the meaning of the word "civil" here)
Post reply on HN