71–80 of 596 posts
I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.) If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that. And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.
What exactly part of this is criminal? I mean, isn't any business free to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they like (for example government employees, hackers, or Democrats), as long as they are not in one of several protected categories like sex/race/national origin/etc.? Or is this violating consumer privacy laws when CC info is used this way?
(and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you).
Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them.
If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible
If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you say "3000 miles away in a storm drain" to deliberately mislead them, congrats, there are plenty of jurisdictions where you have committed obstruction.
If every time they come around, you deliberately cover the spots with blood and the murder weapon hiding spot, ....
>the Greyball technique was also used against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars or otherwise prevent Uber from operating, the employees said Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees?? I think going after average or in many cases poor people trying to make a buck drivin…
When the "harm" is enforcing the law (issuing tickets for illegal behavior), do you sincerely believe this?
If so, where's the line? Can my employer delay the cops at the front door while I head out the back over:
- Parking tickets?
- Drug use?
- Fraud?
- Theft?
- Assault?
- Murder?
How much interference with law enforcement do you believe employers should be allowed to get away with?
I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.) If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that. And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.
> I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. It's not their right to operate where they are prohibited, and it's also not their right to feed people believed to be enforcing that prohibition false information to prevent themselves from being busted for violating that prohibition.
Scraping APIs with fake profiles isn't the right way to go about this.
What's really strange is that I bet a good percente of the people reading this comment will know exactly what I mean when I refer to a: "Startup that employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them." Why aren't the authorities going over the ACTUAL, honest-to-god mafia startup? Sorry, I realize it's off topic here, but my first thought when I re…
If Yelp is the company you're referring to, can you provide links or go into more detail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the federal government has jurisdiction over many things that cross state lines. Even if you personally never cross a state line, if you're coordinating people in multiple states to break laws, and sending information to them about what to do and how, there's a good chance you're on the wrong side of some federal laws.
Yes, but for evading city taxi regulators?!?
(Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
It's so strange how quickly all of this happened. Actually I guess it's been awhile. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 was in 2014, wow.
You know, I remember posting on this site years ago that the Uber CEO was a terrible person (Based on a few interactions I had with him back when UberCab had about 5 employees) and being told by some prominent people that I was wrong. This was back when YC was talking about how "niceness" was a key quality in successful founders. Feels good to have my instincts vindicated.
I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.) If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that. And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.
At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until: > For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement. Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth bi…
---
[1] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
[4] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-greyball-app-vtos-authori...
[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-in-crisis-timeline-2017-...
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-...
[7] http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...
[8] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/technology/uber-lawsuits/
[9] http://www.govtech.com/applications/uber-bans-drivers-from-c...
[10] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/uber-laws...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody was forcing Uber to do anything. They were trying to deny agents of public regulatory bodies the ability to assess them. That isn't any kind of 'right'.
"right" is a moral judgement. It depends on whether you see this as civil disobedience. It may be "right" and also illegal at the same time.