Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–358 of 358 posts

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#351

Post by candiodari »

dx034 wrote: post #330
manyoso wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like he is. The guy still runs the part of Uber's company that is under question here. They could fire him, but they have not. They want their cake - not being penalized for his adverse inference - while eating it too - letting him run the part of the company that is in question. And they have not denied that he took the files in question. With no one disputing it Google's claim stands and that alone, with or…

Which says a lot about the company. In most industries, stealing from your former employer would get you fired immediately. Especially if it draws the company itself in a lawsuit. Usually the first action is to suspend the employee and cut all access to demonstrate that you don't support the behaviour. The way Uber acts looks a lot like they want to profit from the stolen files.

> stealing from your former employer would get you fired immediately

Since that would pretty much be an admission of guilt, you leave out an important detail here. This will only happen if your new employer both believes you did it, and that they will lose the case and get an unacceptable penalty imposed on them as a result.

If they intend to defend themselves, the behavior would be reversed : Legal would strongly object to your firing (or quitting) until the case is over, including all appeals and the terms for any further appeals are over and done with.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#352

Post by mbreese »

candiodari wrote: post #350
mbreese wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got to assume that not helping your employer's defense in a case like this has got to be a fire-able offense. Then at least Uber could sue him too in order to claim some degree of innocence. (Not that it would necessarily work - I doubt it would, but it's got to be a better strategy than this one).

IANAL. However, some thoughts for your consideration: California is an at-will state and this doesn't matter. Walking into your employer's office is a fireable offence in California. So yes, he can be fired for this. What that would achieve, other than looking like an admission of guilt (ironically this may guarantee his continued employment at Uber unless they are prepared to give up their self-driving car departmen…

You're absolutely right about the motivations from the Levandowski side. He certainly has his own lawyers giving him advice, and some of it is clearly aimed at protecting himself from potential future criminal charges.

But that doesn't mean that his legal strategy jibes well with Uber's strategy. Uber and Levandowski are joined at this hip in this case, but they have different fears and motivations. I just wonder if Uber would have a better chance if they parted ways with Levandowski and turned this into a three-way conflict. There have clearly been some differences in legal strategy between Levandowski and Uber.

His primary concern should be his own future and well being. At the same time, from Uber's perspective, if a key employee is refusing to help your defense by withholding information (something he is legally allowed to do), then the only leverage you have over them may be their position in the company.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#353

Post by jquery »

lexicality wrote: post #133
08-15 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here Wait, what? In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded!

Why would they not have the authority to do that? If they want, your employer could demand that you wear pink underwear of a particular brand at all times when in the building and fire you if you did not.

I'm not convinced "at-will" employment extends this far, especially in California. There are still protections against being fired for reasons unrelated to your job.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#354

Post by clubm8 »

DannyBee wrote: post #336
clubm8 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything one can do to reduce the risk of a disovery fishing request on my personal devices? Or is simply working for a company being sued sufficient to be compelled to produce my personal devices? For example, if I stated that my personal phone does not contain any work accounts, and does not access the work network, instead relying on 4G? Or would I have to leave my smartphone at home? Or would not even th…

"Is there anything one can do to reduce the risk of a disovery fishing request on my personal devices?" If it's fishing, you can push back. If it's reasonably targeted to result in actionable evidence, probably not :) "Or is simply working for a company being sued sufficient to be compelled to produce my personal devices?" Probably not quite without a good reason. To be clear, it's not just companies. If you were, fo…

So I can be forced to produce an entire (decrypted) device so that opposing counsel can sift through and find information relevant to a lawsuit?

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#355

Post by throwaway4job »

gsnedders wrote: post #131
throwaway4job wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth remembering a few other things: 1) If the suit is true, then it will almost certainly zero out the investors, and destroy the careers and fortunes of the executives. 2) Uber has a long history of keeping and promoting executives who lack integrity and show a willingness to break the law. As such, it is reasonable to assume that Google is making a good faith effort to argue the strongest possible case on th…

> 2) Uber has a long history of keeping and promoting executives who lack integrity and show a willingness to break the law. Knowing almost nothing about US Federal civil law, can inferences be drawn from that (and other previous behaviour of Uber)?

A judge and jury would struggle to use this unless it was very well-sourced, but as external observers who are attempting to make a best estimate, we certainly can.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#356

Post by DannyBee »

clubm8 wrote: post #354
DannyBee wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is there anything one can do to reduce the risk of a disovery fishing request on my personal devices?" If it's fishing, you can push back. If it's reasonably targeted to result in actionable evidence, probably not :) "Or is simply working for a company being sued sufficient to be compelled to produce my personal devices?" Probably not quite without a good reason. To be clear, it's not just companies. If you were, fo…

So I can be forced to produce an entire (decrypted) device so that opposing counsel can sift through and find information relevant to a lawsuit?

You have this backwards. They don't ask for it and then go looking to see what's relevant, they figure out what relevant stuff it has and then ask for it. If they believe and can show it has evidence relevant to a lawsuit, and you have no 5th amendment privilege to assert in it (IE it is not evidence of a crime, etc), then yes, you can generally be required to produce it.

You can certainly try to get it quashed, but if it really does have evidence relevant to the lawsuit, ... yeah you are probably going to be forced to produce it.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#357

Post by clubm8 »

DannyBee wrote: post #356
clubm8 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I can be forced to produce an entire (decrypted) device so that opposing counsel can sift through and find information relevant to a lawsuit?

You have this backwards. They don't ask for it and then go looking to see what's relevant, they figure out what relevant stuff it has and then ask for it. If they believe and can show it has evidence relevant to a lawsuit, and you have no 5th amendment privilege to assert in it (IE it is not evidence of a crime, etc), then yes, you can generally be required to produce it. You can certainly try to get it quashed, but…

Ah, so it's specific?

Ex: "Produce X chat logs on Y date which we have evidence contain discussions of selling stolen N-Gages"

vs

"Produce all illegal conversations between July and August regarding stealing LIDAR designs"

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#358

Post by ExactoKnight »

pc86 wrote: post #325
ExactoKnight wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing the law, it seems like Uber could construct a viable legal defence around admitting that they inappropriately got access to these files, while simultaneously arguing that they should not face an injunction blocking work on self-driving technology, because the current technology they're developing differs significantly enough from the proprietary tech Google is trying to claim ownership over.

> Without knowing the law The most important four words here.

Would love to be told why the law says this defence wouldn't work.
Post reply on HN