Uber Has Been Using a Secretive Program To Identify Enforcement Officers And Prevent Them From Hailing Cars (nytimes.com)

Uber has been using a secretive program to evade authorities for years, particularly at times when city regulators were trying to block the ride-hailing service, according to a new report by the New York Times. From the report: Uber is using a tool called "Greyball" to work identify requests made by certain users and deny them service, according to the report. The application, later renamed the "violation of terms of service" or VTOS program, is said to employ data analysis on info collected by the Uber app to identify individuals violating Uber's terms of service, and blocks riders from being able to hail rides who fall into that category -- including, according to the report, members of code enforcement authorities or city officials who are attempting to gather data about Uber offering service where it's currently prohibited. The report claims that that Uber's "violation of terms of service" or VTOS program, briefly known as Greyball, began around 2014, and has sign-off from Uber's legal team.In a statement, Uber said, "This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service -- whether that's people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret 'stings' meant to entrap drivers."

Journalists, putting things in context. Russell Brandom, a reporter at The Verge said, This is the kind of thing a DA would put in front of a judge if they wanted to subpoena Uber's business records for an entire city. Matt Rosoff, editorial director at CNBC Digital added, I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now.

Comments

Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Their entire business model is based on violating laws so it makes sense they would build tools to make that as easy possible.

Re:Of course they do

[JoeyRox]

And the business model of Uber's entrenched competition is to pay off politicians to pass laws that unfairly protect their markets from upstarts like Uber. So one is engaging in blatant corporatism while the other is fighting it.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

So one is engaging in blatant corruption while the other is fighting the rule of law.
FTFY

Both parties can be in the wrong, you know. The best outcome for the public would be that some regulatory framework would be put in place to protect Uber passengers:

sex offender drivers unable to pick up passengers of the violated sex for 5 years

no licenses for violent criminals for 5 years

passengers insured for liability like other taxi services are required to do

taxi service license costs to be in line with the cost to ensure compliance, and not as a revenue stream

services for women to request female drivers
Of course, this means that Uber prices will go up and the prices of other taxi services will come down which increases the competition and is a good thing in my opinion.

Re:Of course they do

[squiggleslash]

Oh bollocks. In the vast majority of cases, the laws that Uber violates existed long before the Internet was ever a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. They exist for the most part to ensure accountability (licensing), fair and predictable service (published fares), and, in some cases such as NYC's medallion system, to prevent already clogged streets from being clogged with more taxis.

Even those cities that passed rules Uber has problems with after Uber's creation did so because Uber was already causing problems with the above pre-existing frameworks.

WIth the exception of cities with quotas (like the medallion system in NYC) the laws in question didn't preclude competition. It was easy to start up a new taxi company - you just had to follow the rules, which weren't hard.

One can argue that the taxi system should have been modernized, but the argument that taxi regulations were created to protect taxis from Uber is utterly ridiculous.

Uber was violating perfectly reasonable laws that existed for perfectly reasonable reasons.

Re:Of course they do

[Uberbah]

And the business model of Uber's entrenched competition is to pay off politicians to pass laws that unfairly protect their markets from upstarts like Uber.

Oh, the horror of making drivers properly trained, licensed, compensated and insured. Instead we need a Ponzi scheme, except one doesn't make the first drivers rich, but merely dependent on a new crop of desperate suckers who will wear out their car for you before they figure out they'd make more money working the same number of hours as McDonalds.

dl;dr pound sand, corporatist apologist

Executive with ethics of a Mafia Don

[CraigCruden]

If you are fine doing business with the mafia then you should be fine with Uber.... but if you should favour ethical companies (or more ethical companies)... Uber is a bad choice.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[rmdingler]

It would benefit a potential suitor.

See what I mean, proves SJW activity

[SuperKendall]

My pretty much instant down-mod is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. The SJW playbook is to silence truth quickly and ruthlessly. Downloading this post as well should be the final proof.

Re:Excellent

[Raisey-raison]

Uber just went up a couple notches in my book!

I completely agree. The whole Greyball program is a feature not a bug. Without an aggressive company the monopoly of taxis in so many cities would never have been broken. The law is on the side of lobbyists who are paid by incumbents to prevent competition. I can't tell you how many times I tried to hail a cab in NYC before Uber and simply could not get one. I have similarly been unable to get a cab without 24 hours notice sometimes in the suburbs. The artificial shortage of taxis in NYC is what economics textbooks use to explain economic rent! It's outrageous that people complain about Uber busting up a deeply unfair system full of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations.

Re: Excellent

[PoopJuggler]

It's outrageous that people complain about Uber busting up a deeply unfair system full of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations.

Nobody's complaining about that. What makes Uber suck is that they're no better morally, ethically or economically than the scum in the taxi industry. They're just as predatory and evil.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[radarskiy]

"all the Uber news lately"

These stories were always there. What you are seeing is the collapse of the Uber hype bubble.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[dbIII]

But we're so cheap, ubiquitous, and we're run a thousand times more efficiently than taxis

True, not having to pay tax, insurance, decent wages and expecting drivers to pay for vehicles makes it more efficient than a law abiding taxi company.

Re:ToS

[SethJohnson]

Per this insightful article, venture capital money is artificially subsidizing those rides to make them seem cheaper than public transportation.

So why do people keep using and working for Uber? Money has a lot to do with it. Uber has used venture capital money to offer lower fares that attract more customers. Those subsidies also help Uber attract drivers despite often erratic corporate policies and a lack of job security.

These subsidies create false perceptions about transportation costs such as the one you voiced. People think Uber is doing it right and the traditional taxi companies have been doing it wrong the whole time.

The national taxi business is only worth $11 billion a year. Why is Uber so highly valued? Why is so much venture capital funding injected into Uber?!? Those investors are expecting to own a monopoly position in the transportation service market. Obviously, the intent of such a monopoly would be to ruthlessly squeeze as much money as possible out of consumers.

Again, Congestion

[Tenebrousedge]

We need a barrier to entry. We cannot afford to have unlimited competition in this market, because this market cannot price in congestion. Taxis are happy to bill you for their time even if you're sitting in gridlock. The system does not self-correct. Your further political arguments are uninteresting.

Re:Excellent

[Applehu Akbar]

Your fake bolded insertions would make my real story into a fake story.

The TLC police force is totally legal in NYC, and operates as a special-purpose police force for taxi regulations. It has a long history of thuggish abuse:
http://nypost.com/2014/11/27/d...
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-yo...

The second link contains additional citations of its own.