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

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

#531

Post by gotothedoctor » Fri, May 05, 2017, 11:12 PM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #527

gotothedoctor wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obst…

Yes, Uber was using Greyball in cities where it was not operating legally, Portland amongst them.

Uber publicly admitted they built it, that they were still using it, tried to defend its use (for driver safety), and then, a week later, reversed themselves & agreed to stop using it to evade law enforcement, "going forward."

I cannot imagine why Uber chose to admit all that. (Well, other than there were at least 50 people who worked on Greyball & who knows how many more knew, so maybe there was not much choice...lying wasn't going to cut it & lawsuits were already certain) Nonetheless, its a lot of admissions.

Here's the thing: there are legitimate uses for Greyball (driver safety, as they asserted), but evading law enforcement, which they've now admitted, is not one of them--and, as said over and over, is obstruction of justice.

Uber'll undoubtedly try to defend Greyball on this basis (that there are non illegal uses for it--and that was the overwhelming majority of what it was used for)...it wouldn't have worked but, now with their own reversal & public admissions, it'd be hard to even make such an argument)

anyway, here are a few links about Greyball & Portland:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/08/uber-halt...

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

#532

Post by grandalf » Fri, May 05, 2017, 11:23 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #523

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).

> The customer's benefits came right out of the driver's pay check (and health insurance, and pension funds etc).

I do think Uber has made (and continues to make) a strategic mistake by not becoming the market leader in gig economy support services/systems for its drivers.

But there is nothing stopping an Uber driver from setting up a SEP IRA, signing up for ACA, etc. Those costs are the same whether the employee is 1099 or W2. Many Uber drivers already have a 9-5 job and their Uber money is extra income. But for drivers who are full time, 1099 status can lead to bad life planning.

I'm not praising W2 employment as a panacea though, as I fear you might be. Many companies offer mediocre or nonexistent life planning (pensions, tax planning, health insurance) options, and so it was really an opportunity for Uber to go above and beyond.

I think the future of systems like Uber (service discovery, dispatch, bidirectional karma, etc.) will ultimately be handled through non-profit infrastructure. Without corrupt local medallion services to compete against, an Uber-size war chest is not really needed.

Uber could also have allocated a class of stock for drivers and awarded some fraction for each dollar earned, allowing drivers (especially early ones) to get in on the leverage. But it didn't, and it's likely too late.

> There are methods to changing the law if you disagree.

I'm curious what percentage of laws you think are just and/or should be obeyed on principle and not as part of a cost-of-punishment calculus.

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

#533

Post by matt4077 » Fri, May 05, 2017, 11:52 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #532

matt4077 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> The customer's benefits came right out of the driver's pay check (and health insurance, and pension funds etc). I do think Uber has made (and continues to make) a strategic mistake by not becoming the market leader in gig economy support services/systems for its drivers. But there is nothing stopping an Uber driver from setting up a SEP IRA, signing up for ACA, etc. Those costs are the same whether the employee is…

> I'm curious what percentage of laws you think are just and/or should be obeyed on principle and not as part of a cost-of-punishment calculus.

There isn't a single law that I obey as part of a cost-of-punishment calculus. Of the laws I know to any meaningful degree, I'd judge maybe 70% as essentially good, defer to those who wrote them on about 20% that deal with subject matter I'm unfamiliar with, and (would) follow around 9% even though I disagree, because they were democratically enacted.

Of course there's a vast universe of law I'm completely unaware of, such as the financial sector. But whenever I had to deal with some more specialised parts of the law, I found them to be mostly reasonable.

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

#534

Post by ghaff » Sat, May 06, 2017, 12:26 AM UTC

moeamaya wrote: post #524

laser wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet, there's a way to get from Central Square to Logan for about $2.25 for those who are cost sensitive.

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

#535

Post by raleighm » Sat, May 06, 2017, 12:42 AM UTC

gotothedoctor wrote: post #488

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…

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…

I understand that's your view. I'm asking about its basis. Because what you're saying doesn't sound true, but the point matters (current context aside), so if you are right, I would like to know.

> it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations

By whom or what, pursuant to what? Courts? Sentencing guidelines? Can you provide an example?

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

#536

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 06, 2017, 12:42 AM UTC

gotothedoctor wrote: post #488

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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#537

Post by linkregister » Sat, May 06, 2017, 12:47 AM UTC

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…

The Uber operations folks communicated with the drivers to give them suggestions on how to evade the enforcers. If that is obstruction of justice (no lawyer on here has actually asserted this), then Uber ostensibly has conspired.

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

#538

Post by linkregister » Sat, May 06, 2017, 12:54 AM UTC

azernik wrote: post #210

sharkweek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switched to Lyft following the Susan Fowler blog post, haven't noticed any difference in service at all. Great replacement, at least in a major metro. Sometimes I'll chat with the drivers about what they prefer and most seem to like getting Lyft work more, but Uber has more demand.

Part of why they like working for Lyft more is that it gives them a bigger cut. Paying workers better is a positive mark in my book.

Don't both services take 25%? I'm confused.

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

#539

Post by memmcgee » Sat, May 06, 2017, 12:57 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #372

memmcgee wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People like Uber for "breaking the taxi cab monopoly"... by building their own monopoly.

Yes. And to pile on the "I told you so" stack, I also have been saying here for years that Uber is actually worse and the way they're fighting the "taxi mafia" implies that we'll be worse off when they win.

Exactly. One of Uber's main boasts is that they're "creating jobs" while actively trying (by stealing other Google's tech) to eliminate their drivers.

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

#540

Post by memmcgee » Sat, May 06, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

qb45 wrote: post #377

memmcgee wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the purposes of making money laundering a crime is that it makes it possible to investigate other crimes. You know the mob is making money and you know they're moving that money around somehow. Making money laundering a crime gives investigators a place to start their investigations. If they think a laundromat is a front for the mob, they can prove that by counting how many people are using it and comparing th…

And thusly we went full-circle back to the OP: Now LE comes along and says, gee whiz, our jobs are really hard having to catch criminals doing criminal stuff. You know, let's make it illegal to use your money as you like, to have any sort of privacy in your transactions. Tada, now they can just go after people for moving money around.

Investigating organized crime would be significantly harder without being able to follow a paper trail. I'd rather have the police be able to get legitimate warrants to investigate actually suspicious activity than have them operate by illegal and unethical means.