Slashdot Mirror


Uber Admits Its Ghost Driver 'Greyball' Tool Was Used To Thwart Regulators, Vows To Stop (usatoday.com)

Uber has admitted it used a tool to thwart city regulators, and announced a review of its controversial Greyball technology. From a report on USA Today: Greyballing, a play on blackballing, was a way for Uber officials to remotely provide ghost driver information to a targeted individual. A March 3 report on the program in The New York Times cited a 2014 example where a regulator in Portland, Ore., a city in which Uber was operating without approval at the time, was unable to hail a car because of his Greyball-powered app. "We have started a review of the different ways this technology has been used to date," Joe Sullivan, Uber's chief security officer, wrote in a blog post. "In addition, we are expressly prohibiting its use to target action by local regulators going forward."

71 comments

  1. `We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by TimothyHollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ahh yes, the classic "We promise to stop if you promise not to double-check".

    Who here will bet that the regulators won't get caught in some other filter instead, perhaps one sending a "certified" car for the pickup?

    1. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's obvious..... Regulators need to change their tactics, such as by posting a reward for citizens providing evidence of violation of regulations.

      Then they can increase the penalties, since they know Uber is taking actions to prevent the government itself from auditing.

    2. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can a taxi driver even refuse a ride? I know in some places, the taxi driver cannot refuse the ride to a passenger based on who they are as long as they can pay and are within the zone for the taxi.

      It strikes me, Uber's various unlicensed taxi games are violating that rule too, if they even have a greyball system. Regardless of whether the greyball is used to stop regulators hailing Ubers, it would still be violating the taxi rules that require they take the fare.

    3. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Uber isn't a taxi company. Fnarrrr!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are. As far as I know, cabs can refuse you service if you appear to be a danger to driver or car.

      If picking you up would lead to a fine, I'd consider that a danger to the driver.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I think it's obvious..... Regulators need to change their tactics, such as by posting a reward for citizens providing evidence of violation of regulations.

      Then they can increase the penalties, since they know Uber is taking actions to prevent the government itself from auditing.

      As well, a "mystery customer" approach. So some folks can get their side hustle going. This company defines sleazy.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by DrXym · · Score: 1

      More obviously, the regulators need to buy some burner phones and credit cards. And on a broader scale start looking at bringing some racketeering charges against Uber.

    7. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Just like how we should reward whistleblowers in federal government.

    8. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      From TFA, Uber had an algorithm for detecting burner phones. Basically the $10 phones are all assumed to be burners. So it wasn't very sophisticated. But buying burners turns out not to be sufficient.

    9. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Soviet era style tactics are the best, aren't they? Turn half of the population into informers, you don't even need that many people, you just need to seed the doubt in the people's minds that they are constantly being watched. Except that they are being watched constantly

    10. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question -- how is this not fraud regardless of whether the person is an investigator? If the app reports that there are no cars available when, in fact, there are, instead of reporting to the passenger that they have been blocked, that's fraudulent.

    11. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother with a certified car? Just send a taxi and have them charge the regulator, lol.

    12. Re: `We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      How is it fraud to attempt to avoid a potential customer? Sure, it's discrimination; discrimination against code enforcement.Pretty sure they're not protected under Civil Rights laws. ;)

    13. Re: `We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the problem here? Local government employees are being denied transportation and it is hard to actually show that the greyball program is hindering an investigation. It is just not making it convenient, but there is no obligation to provide service. In fact there is no obligation by anyone to provide such a service to any govt employee. In states that do not have Duty to Rescue laws, you are free to leave a government worker to bleed to death or die in the freezing snow.

    14. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Turning citizens into informers by offering compensation or reward or immunity from past crimes Is hardly unique to the Soviets or Soviet era. It's a time-honored tradition to post Wanted posters with rewards.

      Also, just because the Soviets used Tactic X, does not mean that it is Tactic X itself which was evil.

      The evil was the ends they were trying to achieve and the tyranny and sacrifice of human life.

    15. Re:`We don't need regulation, we pinky-swear' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm no historian but I think the way the soviets did it was a lot more witch-hunty then aiming to prosecute a corporation that clearly feels they are above the law and has demonstrated that they are willing to actively evade law enforcement in order to keep doing it. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  2. Circling the drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    couldn't happen to a more deserving, arrogant company

  3. But what about the raping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they stop raping their female engineers? They haven't announced they will stop doing that.

    1. Re: But what about the raping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly they don't intend to stop. I walk by the building everyday and I can still hear their screams...but there's nothing I can do.

  4. What's this about? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

    I went to the fine article and I still can't tell what is being argued over. What's a ghost driver? What does Greyball do, exactly and how does it thwart oversight? None of that is clear anywhere! I'm used to figuring things out given context but the context is so dense or missing I can't tell what is going on or why.

    BTW: The second link is not germane to the conversation. It's bringing up the CIA leak from earlier this week, not the Uber article.

    1. Re: What's this about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greyballs are what the execs get before they decide to rape their female engineers. They make sure they never turn blue.

    2. Re:What's this about? by gnick · · Score: 1

      What does Greyball do, exactly and how does it thwart oversight?

      From the linked summary:

      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.

      Still don't know what a "Ghost rider" is or why the CIA leaks link is relevant, but that's how they're skirting regulators.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:What's this about? by msmash · · Score: 2

      My apology to both of you. USA Today now changes the link of the article and the body of the article as you scroll down, or hit arrow keys. I accidentally linked to a different story. Have fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out, both of you.

    4. Re:What's this about? by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      I went to the fine article and I still can't tell what is being argued over. What's a ghost driver? What does Greyball do, exactly and how does it thwart oversight? None of that is clear anywhere! I'm used to figuring things out given context but the context is so dense or missing I can't tell what is going on or why.

      BTW: The second link is not germane to the conversation. It's bringing up the CIA leak from earlier this week, not the Uber article.

      It sounds like Uber has drivers in locations where it is against the law to do so. In order to "hide" them from regulators (turn them into ghost drivers), it looks like they created a list of regulators and government employees that was then used in the app to filter out who could get ride sharing service. For example, if John worked for the transport department he wouldn't be able to hail an Uber through the app. However, if Mary was a regular person standing next to John, her ride hail would go through.

      At least that's my understanding...

    5. Re:What's this about? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      Still don't know what a "Ghost rider" is or why the CIA leaks link is relevant, but that's how they're skirting regulators.

      Okay. That's starting to make some sense. I missed the bit you pointed out. Given what you found + ghost rider it sounds like the app was putting fake people into cars and directing the driver elsewhere.

      Now, how they knew when a sting was happening or when an assault was being planned are different questions that should also be answered. Because if they have some nifty prognostication software I'd like to look. Otherwise, they were outright spying on people, somehow.

    6. Re:What's this about? by gnick · · Score: 2

      Now, how they knew when a sting was happening...

      A simple check box when hailing a ride: "Are you a cop? If you are you have to tell me."

      ...or when an assault was being planned...

      Another simple check box: "Are you planning to discuss politics?"

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:What's this about? by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      Still don't know what a "Ghost rider"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:What's this about? by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...it sounds like the app was putting fake people into cars and directing the driver elsewhere...

      To further confuse the issue, here are a couple of articles on Uber "Ghost Drivers" that give us a definition that doesn't really work here. In those articles, "ghost drivers" are people that post gruesome pics on their profile to scare customers into canceling. That can't be right unless Uber has gotten weird.

      You're probably right, although that's not very subtle. I assume the regulator would book a ride and then the ghost driver just wouldn't show or would cancel?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  5. IOW by msauve · · Score: 1

    "Please, please, please don't prosecute our execs for obstruction of justice."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  6. some should some hardtime for that! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    some should some hardtime for that!

  7. Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They know *precisely* how it has been being used. This company just continues to define unethical and creepy in the 21st century (no mean feat, when they are competing with the likes of Facebook and Google for that disctinction). Enough, already. Somebody, please, regulate the living **** out of them.

    1. Re:Give me a break by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      We need a law stating that enforcement of EULAs and TOS must apply across the whole userbase. Shadowbans, Greyballs, etc would only be applicable if they effectively shut off the whole system. There's no reason some politically-driven company in the butthole of the world (San Francisco) should be allowed to inflict their policies on others, if they gain a market share they have a responsibility to treat users equally without regard to politics, jobs, or anything else. If a user breaks the law using their system that's one thing (and there is literally a law to stop the user,) but corporations derive their existence from government approval, they don't have the right to conceal information available to a part of the userbase or to quell freedom of speech - the government doesn't have that right and therefore cannot imbue a corporation with that right.

    2. Re:Give me a break by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      the butthole of the world (San Francisco)

      You've never been to Fresno, have you?

      There's actually scads of towns in California which are better candidates. Ever heard of Firebaugh?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Give me a break by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      The world would be better off without the southern half of California, but the Silicon Valley area is by far the worst for tech.

    4. Re:Give me a break by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      You would not believe what you are signing half the time with those "contracts" because most people don't read them. And a lot of them are vaguely worded. Wait till the abuse of sighing them comes back at you!!

    5. Re:Give me a break by TWX · · Score: 1

      Something I learned a little while ago, is that the people who take an interest in the topic are often the ones that influence its rules.

      Passenger livery companies take an interest in moving people around for fares. Arguably they probably know the most about the topic. They are able to provide a degree of expertise, albeit heavily slanted in their own direction, which they are able to use to influence laws.

      If you want to counter that, show up at the public-comment meetings. Surprisingly when a lot of people show up at public-comment meetings, those holding the meetings generally end up considering what those people have to say provided that it's well thought and intelligent.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Give me a break by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The world would be better off without the southern half of California, but the Silicon Valley area is by far the worst for tech.

      San Francisco isn't in the Silly Valley, though. It's in the Gay Area.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Drivers should be able to control this feature by MrNJ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Drivers have the 1st Amendment right to association
    Right to association includes right to refuse to associate.
    If the drivers do not want to associate with one or more people, they should have the ability.
    If Uber provides a tool that the drivers can use to limit who they associate with, good for the drivers.
    So perhaps instead of blanket application of the "greyball" tool, there should be a checkbox in the Uber app that the drivers can use to turn it on or off.

    --
    I don't respond to or upvote ACs
    1. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Driver in a cab company is an employee of a public business. Public businesses do NOT have unlimited right of association - and are required to serve all members of hte public the same. It's called the Civil Rights Act.

      Companies are not people and do not have, nor should they have, the same freedoms as individuals.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re: Drivers should be able to control this feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Civil Rights act does not say anything about associating with government agents. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    4. Re: Drivers should be able to control this feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Civil Rights act does not say anything about associating with government agents.

      In addition, most courts do not allow [businesses] to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.

    5. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, in texas at least, cab drivers are independent contractors. they pay the cab company a set rate each week for access to the dispatching system, and the driver keeps all he makes.

    6. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by TWX · · Score: 1

      In some places it seems to be dependent on the cab company too. Some companies operate where they lease cabs to the drivers and then provide them access to the dispatch system (which they are free to choose not to use) and the cab company does all of the maintenance on the cab. The driver's only further obligation is to fuel the cab and to return it with a full tank.

      Around here companies using this model became pretty obvious when those companies started using Priuses and Insights as cabs. Even though the cab company charged more for those models, most drivers opted for them since distances can be rather large, so the driver would keep more of the fare if the fuel costs went down.

      Other companies appear to employ drivers directly, and either relied on retired police Chevy Caprices or Ford Crown Victorias until those were exhausted and then switched to minivans by and large, or else used literally whatever cheap four-door cars the company could get, presumably from the trade-in auctions. The latter kind seem to have the lowest fares by mile, but I suspect they make it up in the traffic-delay charge being higher.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Driver in a cab company is an employee of a public business. Public businesses do NOT have unlimited right of association - and are required to serve all members of hte public the same. It's called the Civil Rights Act.

      Companies are not people and do not have, nor should they have, the same freedoms as individuals.

      Whilst I agree with the second sentence.

      Taxi's are under no obligation to pick up anyone and everyone. They can refuse to pick up drunk people for example, this is discrimination but not illegal discrimination. What they cannot do is discriminate on protected attributes like race, religion, social class, tax bracket, so on and so forth. A taxi cannot refuse to pick up someone because they're black, have ginger hair, is catholic or wants to go somewhere that is predominately occupied by blacks or gingers.

      This is one of the more vital reasons we license taxi drivers. When they've proven to be discriminatory in an illegal fashion (including when they've said "no you're drunk" when what they really meant was "no, you're black") they can have their licenses revoked and livelihoods ruined. Whilst in the UK where I live this kind of racism was gone centuries ago, the US still has issues with it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm aware of that subtlety - though I didn't bother with the fine details since they didn't matter to the point I was making.

      That said -you chose a terrible example. Drunkeness is generally NOT considered a valid reason to refuse service when you're a taxi-driver. We WANT drunk people to take taxis, anything to keep them from driving (or even walking home - too high risk of stumbling in front of some innocent driver).

      When you make drunk driving illegal (which is a good thing don't get me wrong) you really have to ensure that alternatives exist. Governments DO frequently make bad laws of course, here in Cape Town for many years it was illegal to sell alcohol for take-home after 5pm on a Saturday.

      That meant anybody who didn't get to the shops in time - was forced to go drink in a bar, which meant more drunk drivers. I'd MUCH rather have people drinking at home. The reason for the law (which stayed active through Sunday until Monday morning) was to ensure that people who wanted wine on a sunday had to go for tastings at wine farms - it was a gift to the wine industry, made with no concern for public safety.
      Luckily that idiocy has since been changed, but it was always a stupid law. Doing favours for industries, even local ones that are a defining part of the city's culture, should not be done at the expense of public safety.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      That's nice sentiment - too bad the US Supreme Court disagreed with you.

    10. Re:Drivers should be able to control this feature by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You mean the supreme court that affirmed the civil rights act in 1965 ? That supreme court ?

      How exactly did they "disagree" with me ? When they affirmed the validity of a law that says EXACTLY what I just said ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  9. Yeah, Sure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Oh, that's horrible, we promise to not get caught doing that again" (we'll hide it better next time)

  10. Good choice of words by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    "expressly prohibiting its use to target action by local regulators going forward"

    But they're not going forward now are they? That's exactly what the app prevents them from doing. /sarcasm

    Regardless, the statement is overly specific and pretty much meaningless as a result.
    Why not just state you won't be operating without a license any more?
    They effectively promised to continue operating without a license but use different tools to obstruct regulators with local responsibilities.

    The focus shouldn't be on this tool, it's that they were knowingly and willfully breaking the law.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Good choice of words by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      Right on. I wonder, at what point do you label a corp, as an "Organized Crime" outfit?

    2. Re:Good choice of words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The focus shouldn't be on this tool, it's that they were knowingly and willfully breaking the law.

      BINGO!

    3. Re:Good choice of words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it ceases to bribe/lobby the right people. CEOs should do jail time, as should the board, when a corporation regularly flouts the law.

  11. Re:Uber is just plain nasty by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Their whole business model is about skirting regulations, taking advantage of the under employed or unemployed

    I can't think of too many corporations that does not describe.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Sleezy, discusting, and yet still in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes you wonder how such a sleezy, discusting, completely amoral company is still doing very well.

    Could it be that the population in general are simply whores with no more morals, just as long as the price is right ?

    1. Re:Sleezy, discusting, and yet still in business by TWX · · Score: 2

      Could it be that the population in general are simply whores with no more morals, just as long as the price is right ?

      There was a doubt?

      My case-study is Walmart. Back in the nineties they had made a concerted effort to push American Made, they were advertising how they supported local jobs and local industry and were trying to buy as much locally-produced merchandise as possible. As a consequence they were a third-rate retailer struggling behind all of the major anchors at the malls, behind K-Mart, and behind Target.

      At some point Walmart decided to abandon this approach and focus solely on price. And it worked. They went from being just another minor player to being the largest retail corporation in the world in a matter of a decade by pandering to the lowest common denominator, even when they decontented their products, borderline-bankrupted their suppliers through strong-arm tactics, and forced their employees to essentially rely on government assistance in order to support themselves. And they're more popular than ever.

      So yes, the population in-general are simply whores with no morals as long as the price is right.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re: Sleezy, discusting, and yet still in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are only in business because of VC hawks. Without the money they keep giving these assholes they wouldn't exist. Blame Silicon Valley's thirst for internet based businesses.

    3. Re:Sleezy, discusting, and yet still in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What actually happened was that a popular national "news magazine" did an expose' where they showed the factory in China that was sewing on the "made in USA" labels, and so Wally World took down the signs and put the real labels back on. They were never pushing products made in the USA, they were only marketing that they were to counter push-back from rural communities.

      You're a good example of why dishonesty is so powerful in modern society. Even people who purport to care, don't. But they already have a tailor made explanation that they just cut out for whatever the topic, so why ever look anything up?

  13. So Uber is bad now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shesh, I remember losing a lot of my karma here on Slashdot arguing that Uber needed to follow local regulations a year or so back.. Now, because it's fashionable to bash Uber we are going to bash them over the head for trying to side step the law and law enforcement? I was warring of exactly this kind of thing and got moderated -1 consistantly...

    Have we no standards here on Slashdot? Sorry, that was an extremely stupid question.. Of course not.

    1. Re:So Uber is bad now? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Depends on who the audience is. The libertarians will argue that new businesses should take advantage of every loophole in current law and regulations available to them. Supporters of traditional unionized cab companies and the entrenched wealth created by the cab medallion market will argue to maintain the status quo.

      It's an argument that nobody can win when governments step in to create artificial markets with their regulatory powers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:So Uber is bad now? by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're ignoring the middle-ground, which includes those in cities that lack a medallion system, where there can be as many cabs as the market will bear. In these environments, taxi regulation is reactionary to bad things that have happened in the past, like sexual assault, robbery, severe injury in traffic collisions, and a lack of insurance to fully cover injuries sustained by passengers.

      Taxi and sedan companies have laws that regulate them because of incidents that happened in the past. Following those regulations costs money. If a company ignores those regulations then they can charge less, but that means that the conditions now exist that may let those previous kinds of incidents return. That's where I have a problem with Uber and its ilk, they're a taxi or sedan service attempting to masquerade as an until-now unclassified "ride sharing" entity so they can violate the laws governing passenger safety.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  14. LOL, fucking Uber by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Uber Admits Its Ghost Driver 'Greyball' Tool Was Used To Thwart Regulators, Vows To Stop

    "We didn't do it and we promise never to do it again!!"

    Or maybe, "You caught us and we'll be more careful not to get caught next time! Ain't I a stinker ha ha ha!"

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. Greyballing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who didn't connect the word blackballing as the origin of the term greyballing? I thought it had something to do with being teabagged by an elderly man.

    CAP: meaning

  16. Cant see the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF Uber has the means, why not helping drivers avoiding tickets? bah

  17. This should be an admission of fault. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Since they were not wishing to comply in good faith, it would be proper to presume that they had something to hide.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  18. Shouldn't people go to jail over this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the law hasn't caught up to the technology, but this seems like obstruction of something.

  19. What Governments can do by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Never have your city/state staff meet in any government building.
    Be aware of your staff been followed digitally and in person near government buildings.
    Set up any groups of staff away from government buildings, parts of the city with other government workers using a front company near lots of other private sector workers.
    Ensure no contact between staff and other government workers. Undercover gov staff sitting down with their gov colleagues over lunch can be mapped out digitally.
    Run your staff like an Embassy in a nation that has a lot of digital systems and workers for counter surveillance.
    Ensure gov staff stay off all social media. If they have past social media with a photo that lists any gov work, don't use them for such tasks.
    Facial recognition will detect any and all gov workers accounts.
    Never talk of ongoing government work on any digital network or with other government workers.
    Do not request any support or provide any ongoing comment on any city, state, federal or private digital network, phone or random government worker.
    No gossip, no support calls, no funding, no meetings, no updates, no emails, no calls into a government building from any type of phone.
    Use private cars. Do not drive around government buildings with the same cars.
    Use paper, a filing cabinet until the gov work is done.
    When meeting workers who are undercover, don't have a phone with you and beware that private detectives been used to track senior gov staff.
    Sitting next to any other person with a phone will get them added to a tracking database.
    Use trendy phones and call in pattern that match normal private sector hours. If most people work 9 to 5, call as a normal person would be expected to.
    Never over use a phone too many times or call at strange hours using different staff with the same cheap phone.
    Pattern matching will show all errors made when using phones. Be a normal user, using a trendy phone in expected hours a few times a week, blend in with all the other users.
    Some basic ideas would have prevented all this. Any police force in the world could have offered such simple tips to gov staff.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"