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

521–530 of 596 posts

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

#521

Post by Jabanga »

AlexandrB wrote: post #448
Jabanga wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws in question are tyrannical infringements of personal liberty. You don't have a right to prohibit people from trading a service for money.

So based on your comment the following are "tyrannical infringements of personal liberty": * laws against child labor * laws against prostitution * minimum wage laws * background check laws As these all prohibit some subset of people from trading a service for money. My question is: would repealing any of these laws actually affect you or your job? I'm guessing not.

Are children capable of providing informed consent for the purposes of the law? That's questionable, so it's questionable if all child labour prohibitions infringe upon individual liberty.

But laws against prostitution and low wage work (aka minimum wage) are absolutely infringements of personal liberty, even if they directly affect only a tiny subset of the population.

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

#522

Post by matt4077 »

SCAQTony wrote: post #273

Why is the Uber board allowing their CEO to continue to make sketchy ethical decisions? You would think they would ask Travis Kalanick to fall on his sword so the company can reboot and perhaps rebrand it's image so it would seem less "sinister" towards regulation, it's drivers and the law.

Uber is structured in such a way that Kalanick still has majority control. The board works for him, essentially.

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

#523

Post by matt4077 »

grandalf wrote: post #144

Edit: Please don't down-vote this. Up-vote it and argue articulately against it! The only thing more embarrassing for authorities than having propped up a corrupt medallion taxi system for decades is this sort of probe. In order to disrupt the corrupt medallion system it took billions of dollars and algorithms to evade the officials who had been tasked by the corrupt medallion industry to leverage small compliance te…

There are methods to changing the law if you disagree. The advantage Uber had in this market, however, was simply choosing a different split in a zero-sum game: The customer's benefits came right out of the driver's pay check (and health insurance, and pension funds etc).

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

#524

Post by moeamaya »

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…

Routinely spent $40 on a taxi from Boston (Logan) Airport to Cambridge (Central Square) as a student. Couldn't really afford it but redeyes often leave one lacking for options. To your point of regulation and pricing, I'd happily accept less "professionalism" for a sensible discount—say $10-15 rides.

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

#525

Post by gotothedoctor »

arzt wrote: post #450
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…

Has another consumer tech company with any visibility ever been charged under RICO?

This looks like a simple & potentially enlightening question, but, its more complicated than it appears & examples may only be more confusing:)

Companies (tech & other) are sued literally all the time under RICO (which is now over 40 years old), though mostly as civil rather than criminal offenses. Success rates vary. Often there are better ways than RICO. And, also, most cases never make it to court.

Basically, prosecutors choose the charges they seek to prosecute based on their judgement of the likelihood of conviction; RICO can effectively multiply the number of charges...which some judges are less keen on. There are many factors at play with RICO, but they won't clarify anything, so I'll leave it there.

It is certainly not clear that the DoJ will even prosecute Uber under RICO. Its a possibility, but perhaps not the most likely approach, for a variety of reasons. That said, its far from impossible. And, some USAs use RICO more than others (eg Preet Bharara).

Long story short: criminal investigations & charges are the issue, more than whether they are charged under RICO. Being criminal investigated is rare in most businesses (less so on Wall St? Idk, speculating) and being prosecuted, even rarer.

Hope this helps.

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

#526

Post by coolgeek »

turc1656 wrote: post #494
coolgeek wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> What you linked to talks about Uber drivers (not Uber corporate) breaking the law

What I linked to says "Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at airport take down phone; have drivers sit up front; etc...)"

That sounds like "Uber corporate" to me

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

#527

Post by turc1656 »

gotothedoctor wrote: post #518
turc1656 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know what you mean by legal definitions of evasion and obstruction. Legal definitions literally vary by jurisdiction, so how one jurisdiction defines a crime is legally different from others...because they pass different laws. Re Portland: this is factually inaccurate. Uber admitted they used Greyball when they were operating illegally in Portland. Yes, Portland & Uber have since come to an agreement, but not…

Ah, so Uber was using Greyball in Portland before the agreement was reached? I was not aware of that. It wasn't clear from what I had read. That would definitely make a big difference. If it can be shown that their activity was illegal and was known to be flatly illegal (not just "unapproved" or rubber-stamped by the local government) rather than merely untested in court, then there is a good case to be made for obstruction. I expect a hell of a defense if they actually levy charges, and I am eagerly waiting to see what that defense would be. I find this case very interesting.

Regarding process servers - yes, they will issue a substitute service and then mail it to you, sure. But my point was that you won't be arrested for trying to hide.

I do totally understand the challenge you face as a lawyer talking to a non-lawyer, lol. I thank you for your comments and additional information.

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

#528

Post by mrgordon »

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…

I've used the service a thousand times without this issue and I just cancel the ride (without a fee) if its taking too long. No reason to blame the platform for one driver especially given that you'll use Uber instead who probably hired the exact same driver.

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

#529

Post by grandalf »

s73ver wrote: post #503
grandalf wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding more middle men isn't a good thing Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you?

I've never given this argument any respect, and I'm not going to start now. Saying that being fucked over might provide a little bit of benefit is no excuse for fucking people over in the first place.

> is no excuse for fucking people over in the first place

Who is getting fucked over because of the job? Are you claiming that people choose those jobs over other, better jobs?

If I didn't own a car and was considering making a career as an Uber driver I'd happily accept a lower level of pay and rent someone else's car for a few months to get a sense of how much the job appealed to me and how hard I'd need to work to make money.

The person renting out the car is the one who has taken out loans and risk and now owns a depreciating asset. He or she must find someone to drive it, and depending on the supply of labor there will be a cost of hiring a driver (which is the driver's pay).

Who do you think needs to be stopped from doing business here? The one investing in renting the cars in hopes of finding drivers? Or the drivers who can't afford a car (or don't want to invest in one) but who want to earn a wage driving?

Or are you arguing that we need some wise arbiter of who can do what work, some sort of jobs minister or similar title?

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

#530

Post by grandalf »

bad-joke wrote: post #466
grandalf wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding more middle men isn't a good thing Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you?

>Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you? It's not just about them. These drivers are effectively working for 50% of what other drivers are making. This drives down the median wage for all other drivers, because more middle men will be able to step in and outcompete independent drivers. Overall, you get more people working longer hour…

> Overall, you get more people working longer hours for less compensation

So then the solution to increasing wages is simply to ban hard-working, willing people from taking jobs! Brilliant. Let's force them to be unemployed just so that those who are allowed to work can make a bit more money.

The biggest flaw in your argument is that it completely leaves out the value of experience. Those lower-wage drivers are not signing up for a lifetime of low-wage driving, they are taking a job that they can leave after a few months after gaining useful/valuable experience.

The beauty of Uber is that it offers the opportunity of part-time commitment work to many people who have not had the option before.

Now, instead of pouring a stiff drink to reduce the stress of personal debt (for example) someone can hop in their car and make a few hundred dollars and actually do something about it. The impact of this on people's sense of being in control of their destiny is profound.

Post reply on HN