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

351–360 of 596 posts

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

#351

Post by bogositosius »

memmcgee wrote: post #333
bogositosius wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>such as his decision to steal Google's self-driving tech When was this proven? So far, those are nothing but allegations in a civil suit.

Do you work for Uber or something? Because you seem awfully determined to be willfully dense about this issue.

Do you work for a taxi association? See how that pointless allegation swings both ways?

If you knew anything about civil litigation, you'd know that what is alleged in lawsuit filings is utterly pointless drivel as far as trying to use it to substantiate a point in a debate. Lawsuit allegations don't have to be factually true, which is why I asked where the allegation has actually been proven.

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

#352

Post by braveo »

dpark wrote: post #232
braveo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, but THAT is about the most ridiculous use of a strawman I've ever seen.

Uber was using the CC information to LOOK UP MORE INFORMATION ON THE USER.

Comparing that to someone simply refusing service is completely outlandish, uncalled for, and indicates a level of bias that is wholly unhealthy for both sides in this discussion.

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

#353

Post by petre »

bogositosius wrote: post #341
chrismcb wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

No, the bank doesn't need to report it, they have transaction records on file. It's specifically about moving cash in excess of 10k euros. It's the same i nthe US, you have to report cash payments in excess to $10k to the IRS.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/cash-contro...

In Greece they have even extended this to other comodities such as gold and you have to report it regardless if you're moving it or not, otherwise they can freely confiscate it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-01/greeks-told-declare...

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

#354

Post by personlurking »

ingenuous2 wrote: post #338
personlurking wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Brazil, there are now Uber users, with fleets of cars, who no longer have to drive themselves, since these users rent the cars out to unemployed people (or those unable to have their own car) in exchange for a large part of the profits.

Given the reported strictness of the Uber rating system, are the actual drivers good? Isn't that what the rating system is supposed to solve?

I'm guessing it's part of the contract when the fleet owners hire, as well as something the owners watch like a hawk. Since the drivers wish to keep their job in order to keep earning, they theoretically need to worry about ratings as much as the next person. If we assume that finding a new fleet owner is easy, then jumping ship and finding employment with someone else may make the driver's need to maintain a good rating a fuzzy matter.

If anyone wishes to learn more, here's an article to throw into Google Translate:

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2016/03/1746900-motor...

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

#355

Post by oblio »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #214
will_brown wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would hope the drivers always sit up front!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aY2-vBAQBU

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

#356

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ingenuous2 wrote: post #338
personlurking wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Brazil, there are now Uber users, with fleets of cars, who no longer have to drive themselves, since these users rent the cars out to unemployed people (or those unable to have their own car) in exchange for a large part of the profits.

Given the reported strictness of the Uber rating system, are the actual drivers good? Isn't that what the rating system is supposed to solve?

Simple; all drivers register their own Uber account, and lose the car if their ratings are not good enough. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the cars were rented out for a flat daily fee instead of depending on the number of rides.

Just a taxi company using Uber.

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

#357

Post by piaste »

bogositosius wrote: post #341
chrismcb wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

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

No, but transactions over X € must be conducted using a traceable medium - cheques, credit cards, bank transfer, sometimes Bitcoin. X varies by country.

Conducting transactions above X € in cash doesn't automatically constitute criminal money laundering, of course, it just gets fined.

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

#358

Post by TeMPOraL »

padiyar83 wrote: post #296
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…

But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports and city councils. And UBER does provide a valuable service to its users. I hate to go back to the days of having to call a yellow taxi cab to take me to the airport and then wonder if they would show up in time or not. //corrected a typo

Playing in an unfair world doesn't justify making it significantly more unfair by throwing out the rulebook.

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

#359

Post by oblio »

th4dv wrote: post #348
mschuster91 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

That doesn't work. It's been tried, some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it.

By your logic we shouldn't regulate smoking or guns or a million other things we regulate, for good reason.

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

#360

Post by TeMPOraL »

th4dv wrote: post #348
mschuster91 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

It sounds fine at first glance, but it's actually ignoring two important points.

1. In this case, there's no opting out of personal protection without endangering innocents - as long as you're using public transportation infrastructure (i.e. roads), an unmaintained and/or uninsured car is a danger to others. There is public interest in ensuring such cars do not drive alongside regular traffic.

2. Such "protection" through enforcement of some minimal standards is a cost; if you remove that floor, the market will push straight down. What you intend as a voluntary opt-out mode will become involuntary, as prices adjusts to reflect the added costs of those standards. In other words, it's not just those who're willingly opting out that will be using "unprotected" services, but also those who can't afford the "protection" but need the service.

Point 2 can be also restated as: safety standards are a cost, the market will happily get rid of it (by externalizing them onto society at large) if you allow it to.

Post reply on HN