Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by asr » Fri, May 05, 2017, 5:38 PM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #444

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…

While I am not a lawyer like you, I think there is reason to believe #1 may not necessarily as straightforward as it seems. At minimum, there can definitely be a case made to support Uber. Evasion generally has to do with mandatory liabilities and provisions. For example - tax avoidance and evasion. It's legal to plan your activities to avoid incurring a tax. It's illegal to take an action that results in a tax liabi…

The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal.

That's not quite right. The issue of whether or not Uber tried to hide activities from authorities is separate from whether the activity was itself illegal. It's possible to face an obstruction of justice charge even if the investigation you are obstructing is looking at legal activity or ultimately does not result in a prosecution.

For example, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice (and lying and conspiracy) even though she was not actually charged with insider trading.[1]

[1] http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-d...

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

#472

Post by tripzilch » Fri, May 05, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

th4dv wrote: post #446

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we end up with almost every single contract including the opt out language. The majority of people don't read contracts, and many of those who do have no access to recourse to do anything other than walking away from the entire field of services. (While in theory the market should fix this by having service offers without those clauses that people who read their contract and walk away from bad ones can use, the t…

> the total number who are willing to walk away are far too smaller Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.

if you think it's about being too lazy that says a LOT more about you than them.

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

#473

Post by mschuster91 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

biztos wrote: post #331

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…

> you don't want them spend a minute idling and typing the destination in the GPS And yet this happens to me in probably one in four rides in Berlin (which adds up to a lot of rides), and not really anywhere exotic: Tegel to Kollwitzplatz for instance. (I agree with all your points and I use MyTaxi which I find good enough, but I think the street map knowledge of Berlin taxi drivers has radically decreased in the las…

> And yet this happens to me in probably one in four rides in Berlin (which adds up to a lot of rides), and not really anywhere exotic: Tegel to Kollwitzplatz for instance.

Obligatory BER joke: Taxi drivers think they're at BER and are a bit confused why it says TXL? ;)

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

#474

Post by asr » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

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…

Some regulations are fine. Like requiring that your drivers have insurance. Or even requiring that your drivers pass some sort of test which demonstrates that they are actually skilled drivers, if you want. But I actually don't like any of the regulations you mentioned.

The most egregious is this one:

cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B.

This is almost always a rule to protect cab drivers in city B. And it's horribly inefficient as it means the cab spends 50% of its time empty. If driving between cities is common, fares have to be much, much higher to compensate drivers for this.

Knowledge of local roads is close to ok, it ties into being a good driver. The other items on your list are nice-to-haves, but at what cost? If tourists really want all this stuff, they can take the cab at the stand outside their hotel or at the airport instead of calling an Uber. But, speaking for myself, I'd prefer to save 10-20 euro on a trip from the airport.

Disclaimer: the closest I have come to Germany is flying through the airports. So feel free to critique my lack of local knowledge.

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

#475

Post by Zak » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:05 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #470

Zak wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. I don't see a big problem with it. If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? If it's not OK to do the original thing then that rather than trying to avoid being punished for it is the fundamental issue. I find it a little odd people are upset over this i…

> If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obs…

Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. Most obstruction of justice statutes I found and read in 5 minutes of google searching required specific acts like destroying records you know to be part of an ongoing investigation or making false statements to officials, not simply any act intended to avoid the attention of law enforcement.

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

#476

Post by jdmichal » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:07 PM UTC

danaliv wrote: post #457

eropple wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't know what civil disobedience is in the first place. Civics education in the United States isn't great; even landmark civil disobedience like in the Sixties often elides that these folks paid the piper for their actions. Hell, I never read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail until college. (Goes without saying that Uber's attempts to make their VCs happy are weak tea in comparison, yeah?)

Indeed, I was taught very clearly that civil disobedience includes accepting punishment, and that this is a very, very important facet of it. (Noted not to dispute your point about civics education, but to stress this to other people who may not have been taught this.)

I thought the same, and even had a post written... But then found a counter-example:

What about people in Nazi Germany hiding others? They were of course very secretive about it -- not being secretive certainly meant you and your charges being sent to a camp, and possibly outright death. Similar things happened with the underground railroad in the US. I would still gladly classify those people as civil disobedients.

Maybe there's a difference when you're protecting others? You can't risk being discovered, because then those who depend on you will also likely be discovered, and you won't be available to continue helping.

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

#477

Post by eridius » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

e28eta wrote: post #447

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, we can say "It's wrong for you to keep using the thing on your phone that's installed and works," but all that will do is make people conceal that they still use Uber. A better approach might be an anecdote: My friend actually made the switch to Lyft, and apparently it's just as quick and effective as Uber. She hasn't had any complaints as far as I know.

I've had ethical qualms about Uber for a long time, but I've always gotten good service. Unfortunately, I had a Lyft experience that really turned me off. They matched me with a driver who was 5-10 minutes away (I believe he was at Millbrae BART). He messaged to ask where I was going, and then once I responded he moved his car slightly farther away from me, and then parked it. We waited ~10 mins. He was unable or unw…

Why didn't you just cancel?

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

#478

Post by Analemma_ » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #475

Analemma_ wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obs…

Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. Most obstruction of justice statutes I found and read in 5 minutes of google searching required specific acts like destroying records you know to be part of an ongoing investigation or making false statements to officials, not simply any act intended to avoid the attention of law enf…

> Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you.

You're right, but as other people in this thread have mentioned, Uber wasn't simply refusing service to the suspected investigators (which probably would've been fine): they were actively wasting their time, making them think a ride was on the way when it wasn't. That tips it into obstruction of justice.

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

#479

Post by linkregister » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

th4dv wrote: post #446

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we end up with almost every single contract including the opt out language. The majority of people don't read contracts, and many of those who do have no access to recourse to do anything other than walking away from the entire field of services. (While in theory the market should fix this by having service offers without those clauses that people who read their contract and walk away from bad ones can use, the t…

> the total number who are willing to walk away are far too smaller Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.

Look at th5dv, who doesn't have any Apple or Google accounts, or use a major U.S. mobile phone carrier. Otherwise, he has agreed to a binding arbitration clause.

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

#480

Post by gotothedoctor » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:39 PM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #444

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…

While I am not a lawyer like you, I think there is reason to believe #1 may not necessarily as straightforward as it seems. At minimum, there can definitely be a case made to support Uber. Evasion generally has to do with mandatory liabilities and provisions. For example - tax avoidance and evasion. It's legal to plan your activities to avoid incurring a tax. It's illegal to take an action that results in a tax liabi…

It is actually just that straightforward. In the jurisdictions where Uber has already admitted to using Greyball to avoid local authorities (eg Portland), they did so to evade laws that were directed specifically at their operation.

It is true that Uber consistently claims that laws that apply to commercial livery do not apply to them--whether it was ever true is debatable. Courts have not been sympathetic to this claim. But, regardless, now, years later, legislatures & city councils have added "ridesharing" to their laws.

Finally, regardless of Uber, there is no technicality that somehow makes obstruction of justice legal in any jurisdiction. And building a piece of software only makes it worse, as it immerses what is a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice across many jurisdictions and involves anyone who built or used it.