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

341–350 of 596 posts

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

#341

Post by bogositosius »

chrismcb wrote: post #309
petre wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of usual situations like moving cash in excess of 10k euros without declaring it have been recently classified as attempts to launder money. In fact this is just how borrow happy states are hunting for taxes nowadays. Eliminating cash is their target. That way they can just take the money out of your account. Just look at India or other socialist states like Sweeden trying to eliminate cash while trumpeting tha…

Typically it is illegal to not report a transaction over 10k. That is the law that was broken, not "money laundering" of course if you move a lot of money around just under the 10k, that is legal unless you knowingly break it up so that you don't have to report it.

In what jurisdiction do I have to report transferring more than $10,000? That's an obligation of the bank, not individuals using banks.

(At least in the U.S. Do EU citizens have to report themselves for such transactions?)

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

#342

Post by avar »

kartickv wrote: post #332
avar wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order for this metaphor to work it would have to be a chain of pizza parlors in many states, and it wouldn't have been the owner who answered the phone, but any number of employees trained by the company to react this way to their local city inspectors.

Why is it okay for the owner to do this, but not an employee? Why is it okay if you have just one shop rather than a chain?

Uber is being tried federally because their crimes cross state lines, which wouldn't be the case with one pizza parlor operating locally in one state engaging in the same behavior.

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

#343

Post by alexbecker »

Tiksi wrote: post #287
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fifth only protects you from self -incrimination.

I think the fifth is interpreted more broadly than that. You don't need to have a specific law in mind that you believe you have broken (and would reveal) to take the fifth; you merely need to believe that it is possibly that what you say might be incriminating in some way. Which, given the fact that no person could reasonably be expected to know the whole of the law, and given that lying to a federal agent in the performance of their duties is always illegal, is a pretty safe bet.

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

#344

Post by dorgo »

pyre wrote: post #206
MichaelGG wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you believe that they are attempting to investigate you, and you intend to lead them on a wild goose chase, then it would be obstruction of justice. The word mincing that you're trying to do here is like trying to claim that murdering someone is just "moving some molecules around" and "moving molecules around isn't illegal." If you put into action a plan that's intent is to mislead investigators that you believe a…

So it doesn't really matter what I do. If I have the intention to obstruct justice then I can stay at home and act criminally by doing so? Nice one. At this point I'm sure I'm a criminal. I don't know what my crime is, but I'm sure layers will tell me before they throw me into jail.

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

#345

Post by janfoeh »

cheatdeath wrote: post #325
naskwo wrote: post #293

Last weekend, I visited Hamburg with my wife. I was surprised when I was told that I couldn't catch an Uber. However, on each German taxi (you know, the beige ones) there was a sticker prompting me to download the "EUTaxi" (or similarly named) app, which I did. Brilliant. I was able to summon a car within minutes, and this app also allows for paying via the app. Uber's biggest threat is, IMO, the creation of a well-w…

Probably myTaxi ( https://de.mytaxi.com/en/index.html ).

I think they mean http://www.taxi.eu/. It's a single app used by large taxi dispatchers all over Europe; in Hamburg, at least HansaTaxi uses it, the largest and IMHO best dispatcher.

As far as I understand it, taxi.eu is an infrastructure service for dispatchers, while MyTaxi is a bit more Uber-like in that it provides a virtual dispatcher for non-affiliated (but still licensed) Taxi drivers.

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

#346

Post by gotothedoctor »

orblivion wrote: post #297
gotothedoctor wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment. While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liab…

Got it. When you had said that it would mitigate punishment, I assumed you meant in a purely unofficial subjective way. Thanks.

could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)

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

#347

Post by bogositosius »

npizzolato wrote: post #286
bogositosius wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>obstruction of justice Fair point. Personally I still think this is overreach but I can follow the legal footing on that.

How is it an overreach to define finding who is a LEO and feeding them false information to deceive them and waste their time as obstruction of justice?

Because protectionist taxi regulations enacted and enforced by local officials are a local issue. Just because the DOJ can shoehorn a legal argument together to assert jurisdiction doesn't mean it isn't yet another overreach by the already bloated bureaucracy known as the United States government.

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

#348

Post by th4dv »

mschuster91 wrote: post #304
jmckib wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do care whether or not my drivers are forced to purchase a medallion and abide by other silly regulations, because it affects the cost and quality of the service.

> drivers are forced to purchase a medallion In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day. > and abide by other silly regulations Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones: - cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have…

> Regulations usually exist for good reasons

It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).

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

#349

Post by gotothedoctor »

avar wrote: post #323
gotothedoctor wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was under the impression that Silk Road wasn't a company but a private website run by Ross. Reading over the Wikipedia article and the indictment I can't find any mention of it being incorporated. Although the indictment mentions at one point that he had an employee, but he may have been paying him privately and not as part of a corporate structure. Does that change anything vis-a-vis the argument you're making wit…

Aka "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man."

No, it changes literally nothing. Criminal enterprises tend to be lean on corporate structure and paperwork for a variety of reasons.

There is also no such thing as a purely private website where everything is legal and there is no liability.

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

#350

Post by bogositosius »

memmcgee wrote: post #330
bogositosius wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which local governments have tried mounting a substantive case and failed?

I don't know... Maybe the local governments that were blocked from investigating by Greyball?

Then let them build a case against Uber for its use of Greyball. Why is federal involvement under RICO statutes necessary to do that?
Post reply on HN