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

411–420 of 596 posts

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

#411

Post by cryptarch »

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…

What if you think it's a private investigator because they're plainclothes officers?

Your points relating to Uber stand, I'm just wondering how it'd work in the case of an individual feeling like they are being shadowed.

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

#412

Post by kofejnik »

personlurking wrote: post #302
vadym909 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pulling an Uber on Uber

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.

same in Ukraine, street posts are plastered with ads for Uber drivers, meaning they give you a car and you get to keep ~50% of fees and ~10% of bonus

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

#413

Post by mbreese »

raleighm wrote: post #400
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…

I appreciate the point you're trying to make here but this isn't correct. Point 4 makes it sound as if courts do allow natural persons to claim civil disobedience as a defense. They don't. At the level of a general statement (i.e., subject to specific statutory context), natural persons and legal entities are in the same position. Either could argue that a given law is unconstitutional, and win or lose. Or, either co…

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the point isn't necessarily that you'd use civil disobedience as an affirmative defense (like a self-defense claim would be). Instead, you'd make that argument to a jury that may or may not factor that into their decision (i.e. jury nullification). You're right that it's not a claim you'd make to a court expecting leniency. But you might be able to gain sympathy from a jury of your peers if they thought you were morally right.

I don't think there is anything that would stop a defense from making that argument. If that's all you had to argue, then that's the proverbial "pound the table", if you will.

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

#414

Post by sharemywin »

easilyBored wrote: post #275
holly4 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.

Time Machine: "Uber settles with DOJ. While admitting to no wrongdoing, Uber agrees to pay $1.2 million fine and $232 in investigation costs." Until people that OK'd, knew and /or executed a certain action go to jail, nothing will change. Lawyer fees and fines now are a tiny cost of doing business for big corps.

Probably Billions but they'll get a settlement to be the only company to operate nationally with immunity.

Except Google pays way too much in lobbying for that.

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

#415

Post by ghaff »

laser wrote: post #327
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…

I generally agree with your sentiment, but just to give another perspective I thought I should point out that there's a significant difference between those that can afford to travel to Europe and hail a ride from a "professionally licensed driver", and those that can afford to spend $3.41* to pool home from Boston to Cambridge at 2:30am on a Thursday night, with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few e…

Does UberPool really profitably work at 2:30am? Boston experimented with late night public transit and basically couldn't make the numbers work.

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

#416

Post by lioeters »

drawnwren wrote: post #301
lioeters wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing financial crisis precipitated by corporate crime/fraud on massive scale, going unpunished?

Oh that seems reasonable. I'm not really sure it was so obvious that I deserved down votes.

I also up-voted you, since asking for clarification to understand an implied connection (to an unmentioned event) is a completely reasonable thing to do. I would have done the same if I didn't see the connection, and everyone should be encouraged to post questions if something is not clearly stated.

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

#417

Post by tormeh »

laser wrote: post #327
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…

I generally agree with your sentiment, but just to give another perspective I thought I should point out that there's a significant difference between those that can afford to travel to Europe and hail a ride from a "professionally licensed driver", and those that can afford to spend $3.41* to pool home from Boston to Cambridge at 2:30am on a Thursday night, with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few e…

Well, there's nothing stopping you from doing this in Germany. You just need taxi insurance. It's pretty lame that Uber can't accommodate this.

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

#418

Post by GrinningFool »

HenryBemis wrote: post #335
drawnwren wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that seems reasonable. I'm not really sure it was so obvious that I deserved down votes.

I gave you an up-vote.. it makes sense that "2008 means financial crisis" but on the other hand many things happened in 2008 and not all of them had to do with that crisis. Especially if you are not in Financial Services. One would argue that the crisis started a lot earlier, or that in many countries the actual crisis became apparent in 2009-2010-2011. Not everyone in this forum lives in the USA and people should re…

In addition 2008 was 9 years ago. There are people here today that were 7 or 8 years old at the time. They might know that things were rough if a parent lost a job - but are unlikely to have the wider context.

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

#419

Post by raleighm »

mbreese wrote: post #413
raleighm wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make here but this isn't correct. Point 4 makes it sound as if courts do allow natural persons to claim civil disobedience as a defense. They don't. At the level of a general statement (i.e., subject to specific statutory context), natural persons and legal entities are in the same position. Either could argue that a given law is unconstitutional, and win or lose. Or, either co…

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the point isn't necessarily that you'd use civil disobedience as an affirmative defense (like a self-defense claim would be). Instead, you'd make that argument to a jury that may or may not factor that into their decision (i.e. jury nullification). You're right that it's not a claim you'd make to a court expecting leniency. But you might be able to gain sympathy from a jury of your pee…

I agree. Just saying that's available to corporations as well. Reason I mention is this: "companies do not engage in civil disobedience" is not only not true; we need and should expect companies to engage in civil disobedience.

Edit: To be clear, I am not talking at all about Greyball. I mean cases where civil disobedience would actually be justified.

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

#420

Post by j_bond »

holly4 wrote: post #188
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…

Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.

I don't really understand why people say this.

2008 was really the popping of an investment bubble due to business incompetence and exuberance among many actors. I don't really see that as a criminal act. If that were the case, then all VC employees should be arrested for causing the 2001 bubble. The only argument that really has any merit is the one that rating agencies misled investors, so I can see some action being done there.

Whereas here with Uber, there are clear laws being broken - very different in my opinion.

Post reply on HN