Uber is having one hell of a year. Anyone have an idea whether it has significantly affected their recruitment of new people?
[deleted]
Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
491–500 of 596 posts
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am not sure why you think that companies do or should engage in civil disobedience.
When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and very expensive, given how much power companies have & employees don't.
Sure, corporations sometimes do act in the public interest and sometimes act in the interest of justice. However, legally, courts & judges do not consider mitigating liability or punishment for their behavior on this basis. There are many reasons for this, but mostly because its just better public policy to limit any civil disobedience mitigation to actual humans.
Otherwise, eg, wouldn't coal mining companies be all about "civil disobedience"?
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#493Last 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…
Not defending Uber in particular, but another feature of the taxi apps is instant feedback about the driver.
My father took a traditional taxi back home from the airport (SeaTac). The driver was on his cell phone the entire time and driving erratically. When my father went to the taxi board to report his behavior they told him "You have an appointment to stand before the board and make your case. It is Wednesday at 3:00PM". I don't know if the time exact, but the point it is during the day when most people are working. My father couldn't get that time off. The body responsible for overseeing drivers wasn't willing to take his complaint if he couldn't come and give it in person during the working day. It was an absurd policy that protected dangerous drivers. It is outrageous to me that the existing framework was clearly designed to protect bad drivers like that.
With apps these days, you can give feedback right away inside the app. No need to go downtown to meet with bureaucrats. I think there is obviously a balance to strike here, but I don't think the current system has found it.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#494Earlier 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…
> 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…
What you linked to talks about Uber drivers (not Uber corporate) breaking the law. Remember, there is a clear difference. Part of Uber's agreement with drivers is that driver's must obey local laws. The drivers are responsible for operating within the bounds of the law, not Uber.
Further, it's entirely possible to be cited for "illegal operation" in a jurisdiction that generally allows Uber drivers' activity. Certain areas are zoned for specific purposes. For example, my friend runs a limo service and there are areas that they are not allowed to pick up passengers for whatever reason, even though the ride is planned in advance. That friend has also been cited (incorrectly) for illegal pickups at the airport as if they were Uber, when they are not and the ride was planned days ago.
My point here is that Uber could still be allowed by law (in general) to operate in a district but a driver's specific actions may violate some smaller aspect of the local law with regards to livery/transportation rules.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
" 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.
I misphrased that, I shouldn't have said defense but when a defendant could expect leniency on that basis. With that caveat my question still stands, `gotothedoctor` is , if I understand him correctly, saying that corporations like Uber can't expect that sort of leniency, but what about other not-quite-just-a-person entities?
a business is a business and a person is a person. there are no "not quite a person entities" (those are businesses) and there are no technicalities here that transform an economic exchange into a personal one.
AKA: no, Ross is not Silk Road. And, yes, the Silk Road is a business that took in millions if not billions.
Simply put: when there is material benefit or an economic exchange, it is a business, whether you are selling lemonade, drugs, guns or even personal services. There is no loophole.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#496[deleted]
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#497Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#498Earlier 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…
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 cl…
Looking at the legal definitions of evasion and obstruction, I don't see anything that applies, especially considering the typical use cases. Obstruction charges usually stem from providing false testimony or evidence, tampering with evidence, or witness tampering.
Evasion - for Portland, they haven't been formally approved from what I read. Doesn't necessarily mean that because they aren't formally approved that the actions are illegal. But I also see that Portland passed a law in Dec 2015 to allow Uber and Lyft on a permanent basis under existing transportation laws that would require them to provide trip data to the city, conduct background checks, etc.
Trying to avoid contact in the course of an investigation or other formal proceedings is generally not illegal. Think about process servers trying to serve papers like subpoena's, decrees, or other court documents on behalf of the state. It's not illegal to avoid those people and try to hide from them. You don't get obstruction or evasion charges even if you are fully aware they are trying to serve you and make efforts to avoid them.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Making a personal remark on someone just because (presumably) they have a different opinion on certain matters is pretty low.
Re: Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
#500Sure, 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.
I see, and understand, the point you're making. But we do have established channels and processes for amending the law. If you decide not to go through these formal means, and favor an approach that directly violates said laws, you'll have to suffer the consequences.
Just because we hate the "taxi cartel" and just because Uber provides an easy-to-use, convenient service, does not justify their actions.
As a community, I think we really need to reexamine the whole "break things" and "ask forgiveness, not permission" culture that YC and the rest of the SV has endorsed as normal, operating procedure.
It's gotten to the point where if you're not willing to bend and break rules, that's seen as some sort of weakness.
Remember, rule of law, is the bedrock of a democratic civil-society. To erode that foundation, is to welcome a whole spate of nastiness that I know none of us want.