Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Opens Criminal Probe Into Uber (washingtonpost.com)
parallel_prankster quotes a report from Washington Post: The Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into Uber's use of a secret software that was used to evade authorities in places where its ride-sharing service was banned or restricted, according to a person familiar with the government's probe. The investigation is in its early stages, but deepens the crisis for the embattled company and its chief executive and founder Travis Kalanick, who has faced a barrage of negative press this year in the wake of high-profile sexual harassment complaints, a slew of high-level executive departures, and a consequential trade secrets lawsuit from Google's parent company. The federal criminal probe, first reported by Reuters, focuses on software developed by Uber called "Greyball." The program helped the company evade officials in cities where Uber was not yet approved. The software identified and blocked rides to transportation regulators who were posing as Uber customers to prove that the company was operating illegally.
Shopkeeper: what can I get you?
Me: I'd like a dozen softwares and three hardwares, please.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Methods to evade laws have nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. One can argue for or against the areas that ban Uber and their laws, but your analogy is flawed. This software is more like a real criminal using methods to avoid undercover police.
They've already commited enough shenanigans to warrant the corporate death penalty.
Corporatism != Free Market
I wonder if this particular specimen of arrogant entitled Tech Bro will finally realise its better to work with regulators around the world than to try and bully your way onto the scene and hope you built up enough critical mass to bulldoze your way through all those tedious regulations and laws that other companies have to comply with.
The idea behind Uber is a good one, but I hope the company itself goes out of business. Its business and HR practices stink and we don't need a company like that running transportation services (not that they'd stop there tbh).
Well, it's criminal conspiracy. Other than that, I suppose that you could say people trying to hide crimes are "implementing their right to not self-incriminate."
It's a novice mistake for a corporation to violate criminal law. The right way is to pay off a Congressman to get the law changed, while at the same time making it illegal for your competitor so that the government will raid them with machine guns when they try to engage in the behavior that was made legal for you.
"Methods to evade laws have nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. One can argue for or against the areas that ban Uber and their laws, but your analogy is flawed. This software is more like a real criminal using methods to avoid undercover police."
I'd say it's a variation of 'We reserve us the right to refuse service to anyone.'
The only thing I haven't seen Uber accused of is facilitating murder sprees or white power movements. They've got everything else covered.
No, a RADAR detector listens for transmissions that exist.
Greyball is/was more like posting lookouts while performing a break in or other forbidden activity is in progress
He wasn't even the first... Just the most willing to break the law to do what he wanted todo... And the try to recast it as being "disruptive"
A company can't target denial to government investigators for the explicit purpose of covering up the criminal activities being investigated.
a criminal investigation was launched into the government's use of secret software that was used to secretly spy on citizens.
Thank you for gifting us, for informating us, with the needfuls. (Have you tried rebooting your grammars?)
No it is a variation of, 'we reserve the right not to participate in a criminal investigation against us', which is not a right.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Let's see, Uber has already had large public announcements abut developing self-diving cars, then flying cars. Each of these were after some bad press about Uber. What will they announce next to distract from this.
Alternatively, there just could be so much bad press that any PR stunt they hold will be immediately after something bad came out.
Uber challenged the stale Taxi monopolies with a new dispatch and payment processing system. However, eventually VCs will get tired of buying people cab rides.
I think Travis and Uber are definitely pushing the limits...the sexual harassment stuff is clearly wrong and they've pushed the boundaries on countless other activities. However, is the ability for a corporation (entity) to preserve itself through technology actually criminal? It seems to me that unless Uber was avoiding paying some type of city tax during trips within a city which hadn't "approved" Uber then what you have here is a "you didn't break any laws, but we're pissed because you didn't receive our permission yet" situation.
Uber has some serious issues, but unless they can tie Uber to a clear violation of the law this is nothing more than a nuisance for Uber, and I'm sure there lawyers will quash this easily.
proper insurance is needed taxis have it uber kind of has it.
uber can just blame there 1099'er doing the work / running the software.
I would say it is more like radar jammer where it uses a false transmission to hide the activity.
Highly illegal, of course.
1) They didn't refuse service, they continued providing app data to those users. It was just intentionally false data.
2) "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service" is a dog-whistle sign that is intended to be understood in a certain way by certain people. If you don't know who that is, you won't know anything is wrong. Luckily though, the owner of the shop is generally not able to communicate that to employees, and so it doesn't get "enforced."
3) There is no right to refuse service, nor any right to be served. All the rights have to do with other things.
This software is more like a real criminal using methods to avoid undercover police.
Is there a law against evading undercover police?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
You are ignorant and illiterate. Read! Uber's criminal activity before the software fiasco was operating in the city in violation of law banning exactly that. The software was designed explicitly to allow Uber to operate despite the law and evade detection. Now in addition to that original charge, they are guilty of obstruction of justice by interfering with official investigation.
A century of taxi regulation at the state and municipal level says that you're wrong. Notice that the one thing that Uber has not tried i arguing that they cannot be regulated. Instead, they lobby against regulation and engage in illegal data collection (Facebook history, credit checks not connected to requets for lines of credit) to avoid it.
Given their malicious attempts at evading compliance, that should at least nullify any agreements made to allow their operation.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1) They didn't refuse service, they continued providing app data to those users. It was just intentionally false data.
Which is an intentional obstruction of measuring compliance.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Close, but not quite.
A private company as the right to refuse service to individuals in general, but it needs to be for a legal reason. Refusing service to law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties will get it in real trouble.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I want to jump on the bash Uber as much as the next. First the police were violating the terms of service. Secondly I have a feeling many of cases were instances of police entrapment. Local police requesting pick ups near city borders, new Uber drivers that don't know it is illegal at some small airport. Finally the police were trying to spy on all uber drivers in an area without a warrant.
No, a RADAR detector listens for transmissions that exist.
In theory, yes.
However as RADAR and LIDAR began to use tighter beams, RADAR detectors had to start using active signals to detect them. If you're using a passive detector for LIDAR, the camera has already got you before your brain registers the beep from the detector (assuming the detector works of course).
Personally I have no issue with RADAR detectors, they aren't illegal in Western Australia because they don't work. Everyone I knew who had one still got speeding tickets from multi-novas (mobile speed cameras) even though their detector was allegedly working. All I ask is that they are certified under the same system as any other transmitting device.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.