Uber Used Another Secret Software To Evade Police, Report Says (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 shares a Bloomberg report: In May 2015 about 10 investigators for the Quebec tax authority burst into Uber Technologies's office in Montreal. The authorities believed Uber had violated tax laws and had a warrant to collect evidence. Managers on-site knew what to do, say people with knowledge of the event. Like managers at Uber's hundreds of offices abroad, they'd been trained to page a number that alerted specially trained staff at company headquarters in San Francisco. When the call came in, staffers quickly remotely logged off every computer in the Montreal office, making it practically impossible for the authorities to retrieve the company records they'd obtained a warrant to collect. The investigators left without any evidence.

Most tech companies don't expect police to regularly raid their offices, but Uber isn't most companies. The ride-hailing startup's reputation for flouting local labor laws and taxi rules has made it a favorite target for law enforcement agencies around the world. That's where this remote system, called Ripley, comes in. From spring 2015 until late 2016, Uber routinely used Ripley to thwart police raids in foreign countries, say three people with knowledge of the system. Allusions to its nature can be found in a smattering of court filings, but its details, scope, and origin haven't been previously reported. The Uber HQ team overseeing Ripley could remotely change passwords and otherwise lock up data on company-owned smartphones, laptops, and desktops as well as shut down the devices. This routine was initially called the unexpected visitor protocol. Employees aware of its existence eventually took to calling it Ripley, after Sigourney Weaver's flamethrower-wielding hero in the Alien movies. The nickname was inspired by a Ripley line in Aliens, after the acid-blooded extraterrestrials easily best a squad of ground troops. 'Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.'

Comments

Uber.

[ledow]

So... obviously they were sued for contributory acts towards the obstruction of justice, no?

If not, why not?

Literally, the guy who phoned it in has deliberately obstructed justice, whether or not the company policy says to do it, or whether the system is entirely operated remotely, or even whether the data asked for was to hand. You can go to jail for decades for that offence alone, whether or not anything is found, which would make anyone think twice about paging that number, no?

I'm more concerned not that Uber did this (they're scumbags, we get the idea already), but that a manager would press it (and in Canada) at personal risk of imprisonment, and that no action was taken about it (whether or not they later provided the data).

If you're trading in Canada, you're liable to their laws and they are able to seize related equipment and data with your co-operation or not, and performing a deliberate act with the express intention of removing said access can only be construed as obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court depending on the court order. It's not even "open to interpretation"... it's quite clear that the only reason to use a facility that cuts off the system should the police come knocking is to stop the police seeing things you don't want them to see but that they may well be otherwise entitled to see.

Uber are scumbags because courts like this allow them to be.

They won

[rsilvergun]

they managed to evade labor law long enough to get entrenched, buy off the necessary politicians and win. Nobody discusses forcing them to comply with minimum wage law. Nobody mentioned that there are millions of commercial drivers without the necessary insurance to protect passengers. No unemployment insurance, no OSHA. Nobody making sure their drivers don't work 30 hours straight off amphetamines, only the most casual background checks....
They've managed to erode several hundred years worth of hard fought worker & consumer protections in about 20 years...

it's not completely clear cut

[supernova87a]

When exactly does it become obstruction of justice? After you're informed and instructed not to interfere with an investigation? Or before?

If you delete a file on your laptop in the course of a normal day that no police is interested in, clearly that cannot be obstruction of justice. Even if 2 weeks later someone tells you that file was relevant to some investigation.

If you actively push a police investigator with a valid warrant away from your computer and type a command to erase the laptop, clearly that could be called obstruction of justice.

Now, how about if you erase your file after you read in the news that your general industry is being investigated for some wrongdoing? How about as you see the police pull up to your house? They haven't given you any notice that your files are of interest to "justice". How about as they knock on the door?

Where is the line drawn?

Re:it's not completely clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

The law actually does define it quite clearly in all of your clear cut examples.

Intent.

If you delete a file because you no longer need it and it's uglying up your desktop, then you've committed no crime. If a LEO comes knocking and you delete it because you don't want them to find it, congrats, you're going to jail if they find out. If you read about your industry getting investigated and delete it because you're done with it, you're fine. If you read about your industry getting investigated and delete it "just in case we get investigated and we really don't want them to find it", congrats, you're going to jail if you get found out.

The intent behind your deletion is everything. Regular house keeping with no ill intent, you're fine even if it does have evidence of illegal behavior. Deleting it because you know it contains evidence of illegal activity and you don't want to get caught, you're fucked if you get caught.

Re: If a remote network command can thwart police

[MoaDweeb]

I'm my land the taxi industry was reregulated in 1990 and although there have been numerous small players comes and go the established players are still there with some additions. Cetianly not as profitable.
this was backed up by regulation: separate endorsements for licence, log books, police checks, in car cameras etc.

Uber did none of these until recently when the law was changed to help them and they are now fulfilling most of these conditions.

The other way Uber rip off their competitors is this whole 'ride-sharing' lie, they have the drivers register for GST (the local VAT equivalent) but the drivers pay no GST because no one earns over the $40k that requires a return. (After all they are 'independent contractors eh?)
Established/ any other taxi company collect & pay GST at an enterprise level so Uber gets a 15% tax-free break.
That means they are also ripping off the taxpayer but our Republican/ Conservative major political party analogue (National) just sucked their dick and agreed to let them go their way.

They are not a technology company they are a transportation company using their drivers (through depreciation of their cars etc.) and the taxpayer to fund their lying, duplicitous ways.