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

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

#481

Post by gotothedoctor » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:42 PM UTC

briantakita wrote: post #392

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…

In criminal scenarios, is it common for a company to accept a plea bargain involving cooperation with Federal Government agencies in various ways such as providing user data or acting under order in select situations?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but, plea bargains do not involve providing unrelated user data to the feds or cooperating in future unrelated matters..

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

#482

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #468

kuschku wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

French Revolution? /s

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. A century this year.

"kill the rich" is still a different standard of justice.

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

#483

Post by coolgeek » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:44 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…

> For me, what Uber did is akin to avoiding roads that are known speed traps

They operated in cities and other areas where they were explicitly prohibited from doing so.

They camouflaged their activities (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14270534) and shadowbanned regulators

So, not only did they not avoid the metaphorical "speed traps", it's more like they covered over the license plates and intentionally sped through them.

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

#484

Post by m4x » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #476

danaliv wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the difference is that if you are disobedient in the (current) USA then you will be dragged through an actual justice system and get the chance to make a case for future law changes etc.

People persecuted in Nazi Germany did not get the chance to argue their case in a court of law or public opinion. They just got taken away.

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

#485

Post by gotothedoctor » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #414

easilyBored wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No court has the power to grant Uber or any company the ability to operate nationally, let alone with immunity.

There are many overlapping laws, in cities, states & counties. Uber is subject to all the relevant laws in any area it operates--but, eg, Portland's laws only matter in Portland, Austin's in Austin, etc. So, for example, Uber chose to leave Austin because Austin passed laws that Uber already obeys in NY, but did not wish to in Texas.

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

#486

Post by lione » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:52 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #476

danaliv wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Nothing says that the civil disobeyer needs to go out of their way to turn themselves in to the authorities if the act of civil disobedience isn't known by the police. If I plan an act of civil disobedience like say sitting in the road to protest something, and it turns out no one drives on that road and the cops never come, I was still breaking the law. You have to accept the consequences of your civil disobedience, and I'm sure the people sheltering slaves/jews knew that if they were caught there would be consequences that they would have to accept.

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

#487

Post by snappyTertle » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

Sure, Uber may have broken the law (or evaded it); however, just because a law exists, doesn't make it correct. We should also question if the law should be there in the first place.

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

#488

Post by gotothedoctor » Fri, May 05, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

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…

No, civil disobedience is not permitted as a defense for humans in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. However, depending on the crime/charge, jurisdiction & relevant laws, it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations. As far as I am aware, there is no court nor is there any case or any law passed, where a corporation is procedurally or statutorily permitted to introduce any claim that their liability or punishment ought to be mitigated by a claim of disobedience.

In other words, civil disobedience may be legally relevant (tho not as a defense) when a human is the defendant, but it is not relevant for a corporation.

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

#489

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

npizzolato wrote: post #280

MichaelGG wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But even that would be OK wouldn't it? Writing "Flour" on a bag before putting contraband powder in it shouldn't be illegal.

If you do that with the intention of passing through a checkpoint to hide your contraband, why shouldn't that be a crime?

Why should a bag of drugs labeled "drugs" be less illegal than a bag of drugs labeled "not drugs"?

The labeling can serve as evidence toward the smuggling case without needing to be its own crime.

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

#490

Post by turc1656 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 7:05 PM UTC

asr wrote: post #471

turc1656 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ulti…

I believe what you said is a bit off - you can't get an obstruction charge for remaining silent or choosing (legally) not to cooperate.

What Martha Stewart did was lie to authorities during the course of a formal investigation in an attempt to convince them that she did nothing wrong and end the investigation. That's completely and entirely different. It's also, by the way, the reason you should never speak to authorities, especially if you are the subject of the investigation. Exercise your right to silence. She chose to speak up and lied. If she kept her mouth shut she might have been able to escape prosecution. Anytime you open your mouth to authorities you open yourself up to one of these obstruction charges. The easiest solution is to just not cooperate one iota with them. Because as soon as you stop playing ball and doing what they want, they will try to use any one of the gazillion laws on the books to try and screw you. Not saying Martha is/was innocent. That's just my take on how I view a person's options when in that situation.

Obstruction charges usually stem from providing false testimony or evidence, tampering with evidence, or witness tampering. None of those, nor any related actions, are applicable here.