It seems like their company motto is: be evil.
Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
361–370 of 596 posts
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it
It's not just about stupid people. It's also about people who get deceived by marketing (i.e. all of us, in some way, at some point). It's also about the market adjusting prices so that the unsafe option will be the only option available for some people, while true costs are externalized onto society.
But the point still is, as you say, we regulate a lot of things for good reason.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Right, but let's say for example that some guy X publishes embarrassing classified information on a protest sign that he's holding in front of the White House, this could be construed as civil disobedience, right?
But it couldn't if Google had the same information and published it on its front page, since it's a corporation.
1. But what if guy X publishes it on his personal blog?
2. What if he occasionally sells used goods via his blog?
3. What if the main point of the blog is to sell those used goods, with a small "notes from the author" section where the information is published?
4. What if it's purely a commercial enterprise & isn't incorporated?
5. And then if it's incorporated it should be clear-cut, since as you said "only people [and not corporations] engage in civil disobedience".
My question is when civil disobedience stops being a defense. Your original comment points out that Uber can't use that because it falls into #5, but then you're saying it wouldn't apply to Silk Road either which as far as I can tell falls into #4.
How about #1-3?
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they're talking about is a red herring. This is more analogous to the food safety inspectors showing up, and Uber intentionally leading them to a different restaurant's kitchen - always, even when the inspector isn't there to officially inspect them.
It's more like the restaurant suspecting someone of investigating them and giving them a different class of service. The analogy is totally busted though, because these investigators didn't show up at Uber and ask for info, they just went around using the service. Nothing wrong with telling a customer their shrimp plate will be done any minute now and hoping they give up and leave.
Yes there is if you believe that customer to be a health inspector and you move set up your shop somewhere else with the intent of evading said health inspector.
See the keyword "intent" there? If your intent with an action is to break the law, the action is illegal.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#365It seems like their company motto is: be evil.
It's like that good old joke - Google decided their motto is "don't be evil", Uber saw that and realized they just left them a market niche.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#366 Uber needs to go down enough is enough already. how many times can you get away with criminal acts, most likely they will just have to pay a fine again though. It seems like corporations can get away with anything these days, and if they get caught they just pay a fine and go on operating.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#367Earlier 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).
How would this work with taxis? Do I need to research every taxi I hail to find out if they meet reasonable safety standards?
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#368I see the civil disobedience argument thrown around here now. Are you seriously saying that running a business without complying to regulations is a civil right?
Yes, the regulations can be argued to be whacky, but I don't see how they infringe on civil rights. Rosa Parks couldn't stop being African American but Uber can switch to another business plan.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Intent is a factor.
Also, even though law is like computer code in being pretty specific and executable, it's unlike computer code in being executed by humans.
Or, like XKCD puts it, https://xkcd.com/1494/.
Or, more simply, judges are not stupid and can figure out if you're playing games with them.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Right, but let's say for example that some guy X publishes embarrassing classified information on a protest sign that he's holding in front of the White House, this could be construed as civil disobedience, right? But it couldn't if Google had the same information and published it on its front page, since it's a corporation. 1. But what if guy X publishes it on his personal blog? 2. What if he occasionally sells used…
" this could be construed as civil disobedience, right?"
"when civil disobedience stops being a defense."
This is the core of your misunderstanding - 'civil disobedience' is never a 'defense'. At best, a judge can take it into account come sentencing time. There is no such thing as a generic 'if you are ideologically motivated, you're off the hook' rule. Private or legal person, doesn't matter.