Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Confirms Uber Is Being Investigated For Criminal Behavior (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the criminal-probe dept.

A newly released letter from the Department of Justice has formally acknowledged that federal prosecutors have an open criminal investigation into Uber. Ars Technica reports: Late last month, as part of the proceedings in the high-profile and ongoing Waymo v. Uber trade secrets lawsuit, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said that on November 22 he had received a letter from San Francisco-based federal prosecutors. It is very unusual for a judge in a civil case to be apprised of a pending criminal investigation involving one of the litigants. In a separate November 28 letter sent to Judge Alsup, Acting U.S. Attorney Alex Tse asked that the first letter not be made public. The judge unsealed both letters on Wednesday. The first letter was signed by two prosecutors, Matthew Parrella and Amie Rooney. Those attorneys are assigned to the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) Unit at the United States Attorney's Office in San Jose. [T]he letter could mean Uber and/or its current or former employees may be under investigation for possible crimes under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a longstanding anti-hacking law.

34 comments

  1. Sherlock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No
    Shit
    !

  2. uber was set up to break laws by sittingnut · · Score: 4, Informative

    uber, a company set up to profit through finding loopholes, or outright breaking, of regulations and laws, that its competitors adhere to, is only now facing prosecution? justice is slow in usa.

    1. Re:uber was set up to break laws by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Funny

      justice is slow in usa

      Or maybe it's pretty quick, now that DOJ is under new management.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:uber was set up to break laws by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      I think it is early in the investigation and it likely means the investigation is going to be quite deep, the announcement because http://startbuyingstocks.com/h... it has a huge impact on market value and something that can not be dumped upon an investing public late in the investigation because it would wipe people out. Own Uber, pretty solid advice would be to sell and sell now, likely one or two insiders are looking to pick it up on the super cheap after arranging it's slaughter because nothing done for months even years, now all of a sudden.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:uber was set up to break laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.
      https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000067336&cycle=2016

    4. Re:uber was set up to break laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once Uber's lobbying and campaign donations reach into millions per year, the investigation will grind to a halt.

      Once they get to telecom levels of spending, we'll see the FTC actively change rules for Uber's benefit.

  3. forgot to buy something from Trump enterprises... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. via a third party, of course. will take care of this right away.

  4. about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuckin a.

  5. Don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TRUMP ADMINISTRATION Confirms Uber Is Being Investigated For Criminal Behavior ?

    fucking hypocrites

    1. Re: Don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's f'ing what in the who now?

      I'm genuinely curious... exactly what is hypocritical? Are you for or against? And what is it you are for/against?

      Pffft.

    2. Re: Don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed the memo. We agreed that politics works best as a team sport. Itâ(TM)s far simpler now.

      Trump can either do no wrong or can do no right. Choose a side and ensure you boo or cheer regardless of whatever it is theyâ(TM)re doing.

    3. Re: Don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11483701&cid=55740211

      This has been typical slashdot hypocrisy - when it's a Republican in office - whatever the executive branch does that slashdot hates it's the President's fault but if it was something good it was the actual office that did it "Bush spies on Americans", "Justice department goes after Microsoft". That script is flipped if it's a Democrat president - "Obama goes after Microsoft", "Justice department spies on Americans"

      It's rare they show their hypocrisy on the same day though.

    4. Re: Don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article submitter and/or editor for this article hates Trump but likes this action. Therefore the action is ascribed to the DOJ rather than 'Trump Administration' or 'Trump's DOJ'. This pattern holds mostly true although Ajit Pai seems to have managed to draw direct ire against him that can manage to occasionally cause articles where the action is unliked and Trump is unliked to be ascribed to Pai instead of Trump.

  6. Already blatantly illegal business. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if this other pending investigation has anything to do with how they were somehow able to get away with operating a completely unlicensed taxi service globally without any apparent regard for the law.

    1. Re:Already blatantly illegal business. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      And while we're at it, let's bring back the Weavers Guild and the salt monopoly. You will probably get to be commissar of something and wear an imposing hat.

    2. Re:Already blatantly illegal business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, must protect the taxi racket.

    3. Re:Already blatantly illegal business. by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      False equivalence fallacy. You've never even seen a taxi in real life, have you?

    4. Re:Already blatantly illegal business. by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or at least, you know... just enforce existing regulations uniformly.

    5. Re: Already blatantly illegal business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny story. When Uber management twas asked about the DoJ investigation into its criminal act, Uber replied:
      "You'll have to be more specific."

    6. Re: Already blatantly illegal business. by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      You're right: those other industries died healthy deaths; taxi companies, however, are like the undead and will require extra effort to eradicate.

      Yes; we've ridden in cabs.

    7. Re:Already blatantly illegal business. by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 2

      Weavers guilds and salt monopolies never went away.
      Uber doesn't have to go away either if it stops lying and offers a bona fide ride sharing service like Bla Bla Car.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  7. Cue "LOCK THEM UP!" chants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the Internet, after all.

  8. they can just put there 1099 drivers at risk by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    they can just put there 1099 drivers at risk and have bear the costs of defending them self's.

  9. They didn't kill many people by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    Which is a lot more than you can say for the tactics of the existing taxi companies. The stats are for reduce cases of drunk driving after Uber arrives in a city are fairly significant. The existing taxi models in almost every jurisdiction were so broken that some one had to break them up. And really, only a fairly slimy egotistical company would do it. Other than a few holders of Taxi medallions the rest of us are much better of because of Uber. We ride in cleaner safer cars, that show up on time, are easy to acquire, have drivers that speak the local language and we do all of this for less money. How many people decided not to buy a car because of Uber, how many people went out just a little bit more because the ride home was cheaper and more pleasant, how many elderly or shut ins now go out because of Uber?

    When the laws are as broken as the taxi laws are sometimes you need a crook to fix things.

    1. Re:They didn't kill many people by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Which is a lot more than you can say for the tactics of the existing taxi companies. The stats are for reduce cases of drunk driving after Uber arrives in a city are fairly significant.

      http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/2...

    2. Re:They didn't kill many people by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      When the laws are as broken as the taxi laws are sometimes you need a crook to fix things.

      Well, there's you're doggone problem right there!

      The crooks already 'fixed' things (the government-brand crooks)!

      Besides, taxi unions and the larger unions they belong to give a metric fuck-ton of money mostly to one political party. They probably aren't very interested in butchering one of their cash-cows just to help out the baskets of deplorables in fly-over country with access to decent, clean, and comfortable transportation at a decent price. "Let them eat Yellow Cab."

      I can see new standard questions being added to DUI/sobriety checkpoints along the lines of "Who is your passenger and is he paying anything for the ride? You say he's your 12-year-old son and doesn't have picture ID? He has a smartphone, are you sure he didn't use it to hire you? We'll need some proof besides your word, sir. Please pull over to the detainment area. You're alleged "son's" alleged "doctor's appointment" will have to wait."

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:They didn't kill many people by jbengt · · Score: 1

      We ride in cleaner safer cars, that show up on time, are easy to acquire, have drivers that speak the local language and we do all of this for less money.

      That does not match the experiences I have had in Uber - except for the on time part. And "on time" hardly matters downtown, which is the only place I grab a taxi lately, and where there are always taxis around to hail.
      Last Uber driver I had obviously spoke english as a second language, didn't know the route to take except how the GPS on his phone showed, (which was not a very good route, anyway) and then proceeded to go north instead of turning around because he apparently couldn't figure out that the phone was showing south without telling him to turn around.

    4. Re: They didn't kill many people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cnn fake news detected. Does not compute.

      Carrier lost...

  10. Isn't is obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber are clearly funded by those pesky Russians.

    -msmash

  11. About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber was conceived by people unwilling to follow regulations and rules. Its why they are being rejected. Obviously very few in management at Uber have a ethical business mindset.

  12. Good by coolmoe2 · · Score: 1

    Personally I can't wait for that parasitic company to just die. Would also be a nice side bonus if the senior management could do some time as well.

  13. Not just in the US by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Similar lawsuits under way in the EU, UK, Canada, and Australia.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --