Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities
reuters.com
reuters.com
Here's why:
1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from it (which has a variety of other RICO implications.)
2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise.
3. Charging Uber under RICO would by no means be unusual or a stretch; this is a quite run of the mill application of these laws. (eg see Preet Bharara's RICO prosecutions: https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosectio... )
4. This is unquestionably a federal matter, within the DOJ's jurisdiction. Uber operates across state lines--and used Greyball in multiple jurisdictions. That said, Uber could & likely will face criminal investigation in other jurisdictions.
5. Finally, this is definitely not Trump's revenge on Travis. Not only does it simply not work that way--USAs are independent & it'd be beyond illegal, but this specific USA was appointed by Obama. (There were two Trump didn't fire; USA Stretch is one of them)
(*And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, many years ago, I worked at the Department of Justice)
This point seems out of place to me. To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the same crime otherwise. Neither corporations nor private citizens can use a defense like, "it was civil disobedience," to avoid criminal liability. This has nothing to do with corporations being people or not. Could you please bring your lawyerly knowledge to bear and correct whatever deficiencies in understanding I have here?
> Governments have generally not recognized the legitimacy of civil disobedience or viewed political objectives as an excuse for breaking the law. Specifically, the law usually distinguishes between criminal motive and criminal intent; the offender's motives or purposes may be admirable and praiseworthy, but his intent may still be criminal. Hence the saying that "if there is any possible justification of civil disobedience it must come from outside the legal system."
See also the Necessity Defense (the above mentioned "political necessity") [0] and Jury Nullification [1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit...
1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of things.
2) "The law" is also too vague. Sometimes intent is relevant, sometimes its not; it just depends on what the law itself says.
3) Civil disobedience is not (as far as I know-there's a lot of laws) a defense for law-breaking, but, it may mitigate punishment or liability for a human. This depends on many things, ranging from the law, to the jurisdiction, to the facts of the case.
4) The distinction I was trying to make was: unlike people, companies do not engage in civil disobedience and a court will not allow a company to claim otherwise, be it as defense or as liability mitigation.
Hope that answers your question?
Basically, in 2003, a very different SCOTUS said sorry Planned Parenthood, but, actually Operation Rescue, as awful & harassing as they are, are not committing EXTORTION, so no RICO for you & overturned their damages award.
Here's the part of the article I'd guess you are referring to:
"The decision, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1118, did not appear to reflect any particular attitude on the court toward abortion, but rather a concern over the implications of invoking the federal racketeering law as a weapon against political protests. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was ''rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO's domain further.'' She noted that in the argument in the case, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who supported the clinics in their interpretation of extortion, acknowledged that the definition might have applied to the sit-ins of the civil rights movement."
Ginsburg's concern was, if SCOTUS accepted that definition of extortion, others could use RICO to prosecute citizens for civil disobedience. Conseqently, she ruled against Planned Parenthood.
Regardless, SCOTUS did not, as you claim, "express concern about expanding motive in RICO cases".
On a very different court, RBG wrote a concurrence, explaining that she voted against Planned Parenthood because she was concerned with the precedent of charging Operation Rescue with extortion, under RICO. Motive is not the issue (nor was it relevant in that case)--RICO...& charging the defendants with extortion, as a basis for RICO prosecution is.
What about Silk Road? I would say that's a legitimate case of a company (of sorts) engaging in civil disobedience. Ross Ulbricht was ideologically motivated.
I've heard some rumors about Travis' ideology. Maybe he's similar. (He named his company Uber, maybe he's some sort of Nietzschean?)
Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished?
When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries.
> You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience.
Is this a point of observation ("I've never heard of a company doing this"), law ("Companies have no legal grounds to claim civil disobedience"), or logic ("companies cannot act, only its constituent humans act")?
If it's the first, I'm claiming to give you a contradictory observation. If it's the second, you yourself said that civil disobedience has no legal significance anyway (just a possible source of sympathy when it comes time for the judge's discretion) so in this sense I don't see why a human's civil disobedience is any more real than a company's. If it's the third, fair enough, but it wasn't clear to me that this was your point.
I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment.
While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations.
Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.
What is the basis of that "cannot"? Sentencing guidelines? Inference from cases where it was asserted but rejected because it came from a corporation?
Edit: Not asking for a citation. Just want to understand the basis for your view, because the point is an important one (current context aside) and your responses thus far about it feel circular (e.g., doesn't apply because it's irrelevant).
Although the indictment mentions at one point that he had an employee, but he may have been paying him privately and not as part of a corporate structure.
Does that change anything vis-a-vis the argument you're making with regards to civil disobedience?
My reading of your comments is that a corporation doesn't have certain rights private individuals have. That makes sense, but does your argument still hold if Silk Road is a purely private website without any corporate structure?
1. https://ia600406.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.23...
No, it changes literally nothing. Criminal enterprises tend to be lean on corporate structure and paperwork for a variety of reasons.
There is also no such thing as a purely private website where everything is legal and there is no liability.
But it couldn't if Google had the same information and published it on its front page, since it's a corporation.
1. But what if guy X publishes it on his personal blog?
2. What if he occasionally sells used goods via his blog?
3. What if the main point of the blog is to sell those used goods, with a small "notes from the author" section where the information is published?
4. What if it's purely a commercial enterprise & isn't incorporated?
5. And then if it's incorporated it should be clear-cut, since as you said "only people [and not corporations] engage in civil disobedience".
My question is when civil disobedience stops being a defense. Your original comment points out that Uber can't use that because it falls into #5, but then you're saying it wouldn't apply to Silk Road either which as far as I can tell falls into #4.
How about #1-3?
This is the core of your misunderstanding - 'civil disobedience' is never a 'defense'. At best, a judge can take it into account come sentencing time. There is no such thing as a generic 'if you are ideologically motivated, you're off the hook' rule. Private or legal person, doesn't matter.
With that caveat my question still stands, `gotothedoctor` is , if I understand him correctly, saying that corporations like Uber can't expect that sort of leniency, but what about other not-quite-just-a-person entities?
AKA: no, Ross is not Silk Road. And, yes, the Silk Road is a business that took in millions if not billions.
Simply put: when there is material benefit or an economic exchange, it is a business, whether you are selling lemonade, drugs, guns or even personal services. There is no loophole.
I didnt work for the Justice Department, but this appears to not be consistently logical. If ideology doesnt matter, why does valuing liberty negatively influence a judge's or prosecuter's actions towards you? That doesn't seem right.
Also, if ideological motivation should not play a role in prosecuting crimes, then why does our justice system sometimes do the opposite (consider hate crimes, or other cases where motivation is considered when prosecuting crimes, i.e. different versions of murder charges.)
I also did not say that "valuing liberty" has a negative influence. That is not how I was using the word "libertarian"
Nor did I say ideological motivation should not or does not play a role in prosecuting crimes. Whether it should or not is probably not important--because ideology does play a role prosecution, particularly in jurisdictions where they're elected.
As you know, motive (mens rea) is an element of some criminal charges, including murder. Motivation matters basically for public policy reasons--for example, we punish hate crimes more harshly because we, as a society, decided crimes motivated by hate are more damaging to society & harsher punishment is a deterant. Similarly, sometimes "crimes of passion" are punished less harshly, because society has decided that harsher punishment would not be a deterrant or effective.
What I said was: ideology is not a defense. And, in Travis's & Ross's cases, such ideology is more likely to increase, rather than mitigate, liability.
And, what I meant was: neither Uber nor the Silk Road would, could or should attempt to assert a defense based on not consenting to CA law, democracy, and/or denying the legitimacy of federal courts. Not only will it irritate the humans whose legitimacy is being questioned, but such a defense is not procedurally permissible in any court that I am aware of. Basically, it won't help either of them--its more likely to increase liability than anything else.
My sense is that we define words like libertarian quite differently, so I'm going to leave it here.
Just look at these superfluous! They acquire riches and yet they become poorer. They want power and first of all the crowbar of power, much money – these impotent, impoverished ones!
I can't tell you what exactly "Nietzschean" would be, but I think that in this and any neighboring contexts it's like talking about having lit fire underwater; some may have confused some sort of reflection with actual fire, but Nietzsche never set and never will set foot in any of these parts. Having been discerned and discarded by him is the only sort of business Nietzsche and any random shareholder value maximizing CEO will ever have. I don't pretend to know or understand Nietzsche at all, but the "worst" that could happen is that someone proves me wrong with Nietzsche quotes, so I'll just claim it and see what happens.
To steal an example from rayiner elsewhere in this thread, let's say you're a restaurant in the segregation-era south in a jurisdiction that requires restaurants to have separate seating areas for white and black people. Let's say you decide to break the law by having a single seating area for everyone. That would be civil disobedience because you're going out of your way to improve conditions for marginalized people at considerable risk, not just of prosecution but of being boycotted by racists. In other words, you breaking the law benefits society more than it benefits you.
This isn't what Uber is doing. Sure, let's say that Travis is ideologically motivated because he feels he has a fundamental natural right to make money using any and every means he sees fit. So that means Uber is breaking the law because they feel the law gets in the way of their natural right to line their pockets with as much cash as they can however they can. It's a purely selfish motivation.
And moving on to Ross, it's the same thing. He was raking in bitcoins hand over fist from what he was doing. He can say "selling anything should be legal" all he wants, but if the end result of him breaking the law is that he gets rich, then he's ultimately doing himself a favor more than he's doing society a favor. And he really shot himself in the foot with those attempted hits. That took all the wind out of the sails of his "I'm not hurting anyone; I'm just helping connect people to each other". He tried to kill people. Worse, he tried to kill people because they stole money from him. There was no ideological motivation for the attempted hits. It was just "this guy stole from me, he has to pay". There goes his entire defense.
And ultimately, "civil disobedience" isn't a defense against conviction. It's an argument for leniency in the sentencing phase. It doesn't exist on paper, either: the only reason the concept exists at all is because judges and juries have broad discretion in sentencing. It's just like how first-time offenders tend to get off easy: there's no law saying "if the convicted has no priors, you have to give them a lesser sentence", it's just based on the logic that someone with no priors is probably someone who made a stupid mistake and not a career criminal. Going back to civil disobedience, the upshot is that if you can convince the judge and/or jury that you breaking the law had a net benefit to society, you might get away with the minimum punishment mandated by law. But if the main consequence of you breaking the law is that you got rich, why would any judge or jury care enough to let you off easily?
Edit: Just to make this clear, IANAL & TINLA.
I don't think there is anything that would stop a defense from making that argument. If that's all you had to argue, then that's the proverbial "pound the table", if you will.
Edit: To be clear, I am not talking at all about Greyball. I mean cases where civil disobedience would actually be justified.
When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and very expensive, given how much power companies have & employees don't.
Sure, corporations sometimes do act in the public interest and sometimes act in the interest of justice. However, legally, courts & judges do not consider mitigating liability or punishment for their behavior on this basis. There are many reasons for this, but mostly because its just better public policy to limit any civil disobedience mitigation to actual humans.
Otherwise, eg, wouldn't coal mining companies be all about "civil disobedience"?
(1) Why should we not welcome civil disobedience then or call it anything other than "civil disobedience"?
(2) In a judicial context, what specifically do you believe would stop the same sentencing considerations from applying to corporations? Sentencing guidelines? Judicial precedent?
Criminal procedure is not my field, so there's a possibility I am making some basic mistaken assumption - please correct me if so.
The government does not require companies to comply with a scheme. Companies are free to contract with the government, but certainly aren't forced. PRISM & Muslim registries are also edge cases. There are many companies who choose not to do any work with the military, defense industry, or even gun, drug, or tobacco companies for ethical reasons. Most companies will allow their employees to opt not to work on projects that violate their ethics or values. However, a company would certainly be within their rights to fire an employee for refusing to participate in a project. (its not a smart move, nor does it help with retention of other employees) None of this is, by any means, civil disobedience--nor are ethics and civil disobedience interchangeable. (& it doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical--but civil disobedience is about law-breaking.)
As you may remember, the courts would not permit the government to force Apple to build decryption software to crack that iphone.
And we should not welcome all or encourage civil disobedience. We should just create just laws. Also, we should not redefine or expand the definition of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is not a "sentencing consideration." All of this is so inside baseball that it'd take explaining all of civil & criminal procedure in order for you to understand. It would take me a long time to make it both clear and accurate and the payoff would not be worth it. Sorry, but yes, you are making many mistaken assumptions:)
There are many public policy reasons why corporations do not & are not considered to engage in civil disobedience. Here's a few quick ones: we don't want companies to direct their employees to break the law or ignore health safety or environmental regulations, or to encourage the formation of criminal enterprises, most (99%?) are defined by a profit-making purpose & this undermines that (& create shareholder lawsuits.) and, despite Citizens United, the overwhelming majority of our laws do not treat corporations as people. For instance, corporations, legally speaking, are not considered to have mens rea or intentions.
TLDR: Citizens United aside, it is actually just not useful or accurate to consider corporations as people, because they aren't. As far as our legal system goes, humans have intentions & a state of mind and corporations don't.
(Feel argue they do, but, as far as the US legal system goes, they don't. And shouldn't. Because they actually don't. So, please, don't. Or, just don't expect my response).
You seem to view civil disobedience as a concept inherent to legal procedure as opposed to being by definition outside of law. That seems to me a very unorthodox definition of civil disobedience.
What I mean by civil disobedience is any legal agent (natural person or otherwise) refusing to comply with valid law for reasons of conscience. If you are subject to a law, you can engage in civil disobedience. A company that refuses for reasons of company principles to comply with a legally valid order to comply with a Muslim registry is engaging in civil disobedience. The ethics of corporate civil disobedience is complicated given obligations to shareholders and need to respect autonomy/views of dissenting employees. But groups of people are indeed capable of having shared principles, and that has nothing to do with Citizen United. Fine if you disagree.
Of course those are edge cases. Instances where civil disobedience is relevant usually are. Those are precisely the cases worth talking about.
Creating just laws and violating unjust ones still in effect are not mutually exclusive.
I am not sure what you mean. I do view civil disobedience through a legal lens, but its inherent in its definition-its action taken in opposition to law. Its not civil disobedience unless the law is being broken.
From Wikipedia: Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.
I am not sure I understand your definition, but it is broader than mine.
I do not understand what you mean here: "A company that refuses for reasons of company principles to comply with a legally valid order to comply with a Muslim registry is engaging in civil disobedience."
What is a “legally valid order”? The US government doesn't & can't order companies to work for it. (Again, consider Apple & San Bernardino--the Court refused the DoJs request) It cannot arbitrarily demand data. (Obviously court orders for discovery, subpoenas,etc are not the same thing) And our Constitution & many very settled SC precedents, along with many other laws, make it illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Similarly, the US Government cannot compel Palantir or Facebook to make a Muslim Registry, but, leaving the Registry aside, either could fire an employee for refusing to work on a project for the Trump administration, (though it'd be a dumb thing to do). Any public attempt the Trump administration makes to create a Muslim registry will be challenged & enjoined in federal court.
If the Trump signs an executive order creating a Muslim Registry, it will be immediately challenged in court, and, a TRO or an injunction, will be granted for the same reasons.
Groups of people are absolutely capable of having shared principles & working together (its even common), but that is not how corporations are defined by laws made by legislatures or how courts interpret & apply those laws. Law is all about definitions, overlapping jurisdictions, and knowing which rules apply. I
However, the government cannot compel or order a company to build a Muslim Registry let alone anything else. Google & Facebook aren't ordered around at their whim. Plus our Constitution also forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. There are many more layers to this than I can explain.
My point about PRISM & the Muslim Registry was that they are on the edge because they are easy….since both are widely viewed as illegal and/or unconstitutional. As have US courts. Laws don't have to be changed; PRISM already violates them. Same with the Muslim Registry; if Trump orders it, a court will enjoin it before it is made. Neither the government nor Trump can order a company to build anything, let alone something that is facially unconstitutional. Neither is as much about civil disobedience as they are are about challenging laws in courts.
I don't think creating just laws and violating unjust ones are mutually exclusive at all. However, the purpose of a company (leaving B corps aside-rooting for you Etsy) is to make profits, regardless of who works there.
A company's BoD may believe that environmental regulations are deeply unjust because climate change is myth, but that doesn't mean that the company can order their coal miners to violate laws.
Last try: companies have fiduciary duties to their shareholders. Not breaking laws is implicit. When a company wants to change a law, it is cheaper & less risky to lobby for change than liability for breaking them. And a broader definition of civil disobedience undermines it, eventually into meaninglessness. Which is great for folks who don’t think words should have meaning, I guess?
Final comment on this: Though civil disobedience is defined by relation to law, ethics are not dependent on or related to law. Seems like our definitions vary more than we disagree.
In other words, civil disobedience may be legally relevant (tho not as a defense) when a human is the defendant, but it is not relevant for a corporation.
> it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations
By whom or what, pursuant to what? Courts? Sentencing guidelines? Can you provide an example?
But no, civil disobedience is not about sentencing guidelines, and its not statutory (legislatures don't create laws for breaking the law) nor is it a defense, but nonetheless, it may be relevant. Again, it depends on many things, like the case itself, the jurisdiction, local rules, applicable laws, the judge...and why any of this matters is hard to understand without a background in civil & criminal procedure.
Someone else asked similar here & I went into further detail about why. A short answer is that humans have have states of mind, intentions and motives, and corporations do not (maybe you think they do; the legal system does not--judges and juries determine them as elements of crimes for humans, but not for corporations.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14278589
Hope this helps; I wish I had a better way of explaining, but, I'm no sure what else to say other than that our laws distinguish between humans and corporations and so do our courts, because our democracy has determined that its best for public policy not to, for example, allow companies, whose legal purpose is to produce monetary profits for shareholders, to instruct their employees to break laws.
Hmmm. I'll try but maybe we are misunderstanding each other, because this doesn't seem debatable?
There are rules that define what kind of defenses, mitigating circumstances, evidence can be presented etc, are permitted for civil & criminal cases & what common law & evidence can be shared with the jury etc.. I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where corporations are considered equal to people or have a mens rea etc or were permitted to describe their corporate law-breaking as "civil disobedience" to a jury.
That's not how I'd say the law viewed corporations or punitive damages; guessing we use words differently & aren't understanding each other.
I am not sure what else to say; that different rules & laws apply to corporations & people seems to be a standard thing in my world. In my head its a given, so maybe my explanations are not as clear as I think. If I come across a link I'll share.
And with Uber, the board and owners could similarly claim that they were personally engaging in civil disobedience, right? In the way that they managed Uber. However, I suspect that limited personal liability for corporate actions is a better deal.
See, the whole point of civil disobedience is this: under the Constitution and the precepts of common law, bad laws don't have to be followed. So civil disobedience is making a show of deliberately breaking a bad law in order to call attention to the fact that the law is bad, risking your own liberty in the process. Then when it goes to trial, a jury may decide that though you broke the law, you are in the right and acquit you. This power of "jury nullification" is also recognized in common law and while it may not actually nullify laws, it makes them more difficult to enforce and when they're not enforced they are effectively void. A lot of the fun-fact ridiculous laws like "it is illegal to kiss in public on Sundays" are old laws which the local authorities can't be bothered to enforce and so are not really in force.
But back to civil disobedience: it is an assertion through deed of human rights. Corporations lack human rights, and furthermore if you are making money off your violation of the law you are less likely to be smiled upon by a jury.
Worse the drivers usually use a Lawyer selected and paid for by Uber, and guess what that lawyer isn't some independent traffic lawyer it's Uber's FL lobbyist. Though these charges are years old, last I check none were resolved and still $2M-$3M in fines owed to Miami.
To this day in Miami, it's not uncommon for drivers to allow undocumented immigrants without drivers licenses to use their Uber car/account.
I don't believe they misspelled anything but if you change the charge from illegal ride for hire to prostitution, drugs, etc... it's Fairly easy to see organized crime... some of our drivers/prositutes/dealers have got into legal trouble, while we work to lobby to change the law, you can hopefully avoid legal trouble by x,y,z but don't forget if you do get in legal trouble we will pay the fines and provide a lawyer (so you have no clue what's going on and we can cover our ass).
[1] https://uberpeople.net/threads/welcome-to-miami-internationa...
1. The way it was working in Miami is drivers would get 2 tickets when they were stopped, I think a. No taxi license; b. Illegal ride for hire. Both are $1,010 so a total of $2,020 per stop;
2. The laws escalate from civil penalties to criminal charges upon the 3rd such violation (I.e. 2nd stop could be criminal)
3. This also means 2 stops and you are out from your Uber driving
4. I don't think Uber has actually paid anyone's fines, at least it appears all these years later articles say the fines are still outstanding.
If anyone wishes to learn more, here's an article to throw into Google Translate:
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2016/03/1746900-motor...
Just a taxi company using Uber.
Would the people who chose employment through them as a preferable choice to other options (or unemployment) agree with you?
It's not just about them. These drivers are effectively working for 50% of what other drivers are making. This drives down the median wage for all other drivers, because more middle men will be able to step in and outcompete independent drivers. Overall, you get more people working longer hours for less compensation.
To what end? Who really benefits from this trend?
So then the solution to increasing wages is simply to ban hard-working, willing people from taking jobs! Brilliant. Let's force them to be unemployed just so that those who are allowed to work can make a bit more money.
The biggest flaw in your argument is that it completely leaves out the value of experience. Those lower-wage drivers are not signing up for a lifetime of low-wage driving, they are taking a job that they can leave after a few months after gaining useful/valuable experience.
The beauty of Uber is that it offers the opportunity of part-time commitment work to many people who have not had the option before.
Now, instead of pouring a stiff drink to reduce the stress of personal debt (for example) someone can hop in their car and make a few hundred dollars and actually do something about it. The impact of this on people's sense of being in control of their destiny is profound.
Yes, when the job is a systemic arbitrage of labor that externalizes costs and consequences in a way that's bad for society.
You might as well say 'so the solution to increasing wealth is simply to ban enterprising, daring people from robbing houses, stores and banks!' We're talking about the ways capital is exchanged in a dynamic with a labor and an owner class. To blindly assume the owner class cannot arbitrage labor is… kind of unobservant, when we've already got what they call a 'precariat'.
I get that some people want to believe a job as a fry cook (or Uber driver) is a step towards being a CEO, but there's already a CEO. These are not 'ladders of opportunity'. Most likely being unemployed or a dropout has higher odds of ending up the CEO.
edit: what makes you so sure about what's good for society?
Who is getting fucked over because of the job? Are you claiming that people choose those jobs over other, better jobs?
If I didn't own a car and was considering making a career as an Uber driver I'd happily accept a lower level of pay and rent someone else's car for a few months to get a sense of how much the job appealed to me and how hard I'd need to work to make money.
The person renting out the car is the one who has taken out loans and risk and now owns a depreciating asset. He or she must find someone to drive it, and depending on the supply of labor there will be a cost of hiring a driver (which is the driver's pay).
Who do you think needs to be stopped from doing business here? The one investing in renting the cars in hopes of finding drivers? Or the drivers who can't afford a car (or don't want to invest in one) but who want to earn a wage driving?
Or are you arguing that we need some wise arbiter of who can do what work, some sort of jobs minister or similar title?
Today, the drivers I get on UberX are almost universally bad. You get a 10 year old vehicle that is poorly maintained and unsafe (last couple rides have been a 2006 Ford Escape and a 2005 Chevy Bronco; both had bad tires and suspension and numerous dashboard warning lights lit). The drivers are immigrants with very poor english, who didn't have an EZ Pass for the tolls, and most likely were borrowing their friend or family member's car.
Unless I really have to now, I'm avoiding Uber and driving myself to the airport. Uber has proven they don't care about passenger safety, and only care about profits.
You do that. Me and the tens of thousands other riders will continue to use Uber for airport trips despite owning a car. I just wanted to counter your antecdote with mine.
To pick on one point, I don't see educated people or millennials as likely to be better drivers.
Maybe not, but they are people who have options, and if they pick "driving for Uber" as their best option, we can assume that the conditions are pretty good, vs people for whom this is the only "job" they can get.
Surely that's a historical oddity courtesy of the economy at the time.
This is literally my interaction with Uber drivers in Jordan. Originally just a convenience (available on demand, and that I don't speak Arabic), I've started getting nervous when using Uber because they aren't licensed in Jordan and drivers always have the discussion with me about sitting up front, telling the police that "we met in English class", etc.
from Wikipedia: United States Attorneys (also known as chief federal prosecutors and, historically, as United States District Attorneys)[1][2][3] represent the United States federal government in United States district court and United States court of appeals.
he/she is talking about bankers.
Not everyone in this forum lives in the USA and people should remember that :)
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-...
Until people that OK'd, knew and /or executed a certain action go to jail, nothing will change. Lawyer fees and fines now are a tiny cost of doing business for big corps.
A century this year.
Except Google pays way too much in lobbying for that.
There are many overlapping laws, in cities, states & counties. Uber is subject to all the relevant laws in any area it operates--but, eg, Portland's laws only matter in Portland, Austin's in Austin, etc. So, for example, Uber chose to leave Austin because Austin passed laws that Uber already obeys in NY, but did not wish to in Texas.
2008 was really the popping of an investment bubble due to business incompetence and exuberance among many actors. I don't really see that as a criminal act. If that were the case, then all VC employees should be arrested for causing the 2001 bubble. The only argument that really has any merit is the one that rating agencies misled investors, so I can see some action being done there.
Whereas here with Uber, there are clear laws being broken - very different in my opinion.
It kind of goes to my point that it seem to be more of incentive and business failure than a criminal one. Being aggressive with your company and then failing isn't a crime.
Why do people still argue that? It makes no sense to me, even as a non-lawyer (but I've watched People's Court :))
Otherwise El Chapo could be arguing the same, I believe in people's rights to use drugs so I'm breaking every law in the books and making billions "while fighting for their rights"
(Goes without saying that Uber's attempts to make their VCs happy are weak tea in comparison, yeah?)
(Noted not to dispute your point about civics education, but to stress this to other people who may not have been taught this.)
What about people in Nazi Germany hiding others? They were of course very secretive about it -- not being secretive certainly meant you and your charges being sent to a camp, and possibly outright death. Similar things happened with the underground railroad in the US. I would still gladly classify those people as civil disobedients.
Maybe there's a difference when you're protecting others? You can't risk being discovered, because then those who depend on you will also likely be discovered, and you won't be available to continue helping.
I think the difference is that if you are disobedient in the (current) USA then you will be dragged through an actual justice system and get the chance to make a case for future law changes etc.
People persecuted in Nazi Germany did not get the chance to argue their case in a court of law or public opinion. They just got taken away.
The martyr approach works well if your goal is to get society to recognize an issue and fix it. It's like an extreme form of demonstrations; the entire point is to be seen and generate discontent. This discontent becomes the energy that changes the status quo.
But if you're not capable of (or uninterested in) changing the status quo, but just want to "do the right thing", then evading detection is a much better approach.
Or you smuggle a persecuted across the US border it might still be illegal for you but you're breaking the law for a humanitarian reason. However, if you charge $5000 a person, any person from MS-13 to Isis to day laborers bring your toothbrush
//corrected a typo
Consider a case where the legal system was attempting to enforce property rights involving slavery and an individual obstructed the system. Many would consider this justified obstruction of justice because they are morally opposed to what the legal system is trying to do. (I'm not trying to say what Uber is doing is anything like the example I gave, I was only trying to give an extreme example where many readers would at least see how people would feel it justified the obstruction of justice.)
Legally, it doesn't at all.
I can reconcile this with my own values.
Practically, an enterprise of criminals is more likely to be effective, and thus would create more negative costs.
Legally, it allows prosecution of the organizers of a crime group, who are likely the most dangerous and more difficult to catch in the act, as they contract others to do their work.
They claim it is to circumvent fraud (folks ordering pizza and not paying) and bad payments and the like as a cover. And it isn't just a local pizza place: This is a nationwide chain doing such actions.
Edit: Addtionally, employees would be trained to avoid such situations.
Evasion generally has to do with mandatory liabilities and provisions. For example - tax avoidance and evasion. It's legal to plan your activities to avoid incurring a tax. It's illegal to take an action that results in a tax liability and then not pay it or attempt to hide it.
For me, what Uber did is akin to avoiding roads that are known speed traps. Yes, Uber is required to obey the laws of the jurisdiction they are in, but they are also able to deny service to anyone for any reason so long as that reason does not fall under a protected class (age, race, gender, etc.). Refusing service for being a suspected member of law enforcement is allowed. Just as certain small businesses provide discounts to law enforcement in appreciation of their service, others can refuse to serve them.
The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal. It sounds to me (and has been stated elsewhere) that many of the jurisdictions where this was being used have unclear or incomplete ride-sharing and booking laws. This would make the activities by Uber up for legal debate, just like the Uber legal battle in CA on whether to classify drivers as employees or contractors. If there's not a consensus or existing legal precedent that a specific activity is illegal, you can't say that their activity is evasion because the activity they are trying to "hide" hasn't been ruled in court to actually be illegal because this situation is still relatively new and hasn't been adjudicated on yet. Once we have a decision by the courts on the underlying activity, then yes, using Greyball to avoid authorities would be illegal.
That's not quite right. The issue of whether or not Uber tried to hide activities from authorities is separate from whether the activity was itself illegal. It's possible to face an obstruction of justice charge even if the investigation you are obstructing is looking at legal activity or ultimately does not result in a prosecution.
For example, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice (and lying and conspiracy) even though she was not actually charged with insider trading.[1]
[1] http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-d...
What Martha Stewart did was lie to authorities during the course of a formal investigation in an attempt to convince them that she did nothing wrong and end the investigation. That's completely and entirely different. It's also, by the way, the reason you should never speak to authorities, especially if you are the subject of the investigation. Exercise your right to silence. She chose to speak up and lied. If she kept her mouth shut she might have been able to escape prosecution. Anytime you open your mouth to authorities you open yourself up to one of these obstruction charges. The easiest solution is to just not cooperate one iota with them. Because as soon as you stop playing ball and doing what they want, they will try to use any one of the gazillion laws on the books to try and screw you. Not saying Martha is/was innocent. That's just my take on how I view a person's options when in that situation.
Obstruction charges usually stem from providing false testimony or evidence, tampering with evidence, or witness tampering. None of those, nor any related actions, are applicable here.
It is true that Uber consistently claims that laws that apply to commercial livery do not apply to them--whether it was ever true is debatable. Courts have not been sympathetic to this claim. But, regardless, now, years later, legislatures & city councils have added "ridesharing" to their laws.
Finally, regardless of Uber, there is no technicality that somehow makes obstruction of justice legal in any jurisdiction. And building a piece of software only makes it worse, as it immerses what is a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice across many jurisdictions and involves anyone who built or used it.
Evasion - for Portland, they haven't been formally approved from what I read. Doesn't necessarily mean that because they aren't formally approved that the actions are illegal. But I also see that Portland passed a law in Dec 2015 to allow Uber and Lyft on a permanent basis under existing transportation laws that would require them to provide trip data to the city, conduct background checks, etc.
Trying to avoid contact in the course of an investigation or other formal proceedings is generally not illegal. Think about process servers trying to serve papers like subpoena's, decrees, or other court documents on behalf of the state. It's not illegal to avoid those people and try to hide from them. You don't get obstruction or evasion charges even if you are fully aware they are trying to serve you and make efforts to avoid them.
18 U.S.C. 1001 is a great place to start, but doesn't necessarily tell you what the current interpretation of the law is. To determine what that is, you need to determine which cases are leading and how they were interpreted, then you need to go back and apply it to the facts. This is a weaker offence, but seems more likely to stick if raised.
From there you can move into RICO specific issues at 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 (emphasis on 1961-1963). From 1961 you can find the offenses that trigger RICO. Check out section 1510 specifically. I think the RICO link here is weak, but I haven't gone through all the case law.
Spoilation is another good jumping-off point for understanding the relevant principles.
The concern with any of these one-off avenues, though, is that they're individually non-comprehensive. Note that the terms in each of these three segments are different despite the fact that they're talking about subtle variations on the same thing.
Re Portland: this is factually inaccurate. Uber admitted they used Greyball when they were operating illegally in Portland. Yes, Portland & Uber have since come to an agreement, but not even Uber claims they were operating legally when they used Greyball to evade law enforcement..
Kindly, the challenge with explaining this to non-lawyers is that you do not know what you do not know, but think you do, & use words differently than an officer of a court does.
The example of a process-server is simply not a relevant comparison. Proccess-serving has a lot of TV-created urban legendry around it. Yes, you can try to avoid being served & but, no, you can't ignore a court order or a subpoena by avoiding a process server. If you try to hide, they'll eventually just mail the summons to you.
Regardless, process-serving has nothing to do with what Uber already admitted to doing: building & using software in CA to evade law enforcement in, eg Portland, which is a jurisdictions where they knew they were operating illegally. This is obstruction of justice.
Regarding process servers - yes, they will issue a substitute service and then mail it to you, sure. But my point was that you won't be arrested for trying to hide.
I do totally understand the challenge you face as a lawyer talking to a non-lawyer, lol. I thank you for your comments and additional information.
Uber publicly admitted they built it, that they were still using it, tried to defend its use (for driver safety), and then, a week later, reversed themselves & agreed to stop using it to evade law enforcement, "going forward."
I cannot imagine why Uber chose to admit all that. (Well, other than there were at least 50 people who worked on Greyball & who knows how many more knew, so maybe there was not much choice...lying wasn't going to cut it & lawsuits were already certain) Nonetheless, its a lot of admissions.
Here's the thing: there are legitimate uses for Greyball (driver safety, as they asserted), but evading law enforcement, which they've now admitted, is not one of them--and, as said over and over, is obstruction of justice.
Uber'll undoubtedly try to defend Greyball on this basis (that there are non illegal uses for it--and that was the overwhelming majority of what it was used for)...it wouldn't have worked but, now with their own reversal & public admissions, it'd be hard to even make such an argument)
anyway, here are a few links about Greyball & Portland:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/08/uber-halt...
They operated in cities and other areas where they were explicitly prohibited from doing so.
They camouflaged their activities (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14270534) and shadowbanned regulators
So, not only did they not avoid the metaphorical "speed traps", it's more like they covered over the license plates and intentionally sped through them.
Further, it's entirely possible to be cited for "illegal operation" in a jurisdiction that generally allows Uber drivers' activity. Certain areas are zoned for specific purposes. For example, my friend runs a limo service and there are areas that they are not allowed to pick up passengers for whatever reason, even though the ride is planned in advance. That friend has also been cited (incorrectly) for illegal pickups at the airport as if they were Uber, when they are not and the ride was planned days ago.
My point here is that Uber could still be allowed by law (in general) to operate in a district but a driver's specific actions may violate some smaller aspect of the local law with regards to livery/transportation rules.
Yeah, and if Uber had drivers breaking the law and making money for Uber it would be pretty naive to assume that a company like Uber doesn't know that this money was made in areas where Uber was not allowed to operate or illegal. That too, we are talking about a company which is an expert on location tracking. I don't think such an argument could even remotely fly in a decent court of law.
What I linked to says "Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at airport take down phone; have drivers sit up front; etc...)"
That sounds like "Uber corporate" to me
Companies (tech & other) are sued literally all the time under RICO (which is now over 40 years old), though mostly as civil rather than criminal offenses. Success rates vary. Often there are better ways than RICO. And, also, most cases never make it to court.
Basically, prosecutors choose the charges they seek to prosecute based on their judgement of the likelihood of conviction; RICO can effectively multiply the number of charges...which some judges are less keen on. There are many factors at play with RICO, but they won't clarify anything, so I'll leave it there.
It is certainly not clear that the DoJ will even prosecute Uber under RICO. Its a possibility, but perhaps not the most likely approach, for a variety of reasons. That said, its far from impossible. And, some USAs use RICO more than others (eg Preet Bharara).
Long story short: criminal investigations & charges are the issue, more than whether they are charged under RICO. Being criminal investigated is rare in most businesses (less so on Wall St? Idk, speculating) and being prosecuted, even rarer.
Hope this helps.
"Catholic sex abuse cases[edit]
In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston, prior to his assignment to Vatican City.[11][12] In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in Pennsylvania.[13]"
So RICO can be used for both criminal and civil charges?
Brilliant. I was able to summon a car within minutes, and this app also allows for paying via the app.
Uber's biggest threat is, IMO, the creation of a well-working "push to ride & pay" taxi app by other countries that are as similarly well organised as Germany.
For me as a consumer, I could care less if I download Uber or EUTaxi. As long as I get my ride on time, and with a professionally licensed driver.
In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day.
> and abide by other silly regulations
Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones:
- cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have drivers which are stuck on the side of the road if their GPS fails and also you don't want them spend a minute idling and typing the destination in the GPS. Furthermore, it makes for a more professional experience.
- cab drivers have to know lots of tourist info (this applies at least for Munich, Berlin and Hamburg): you don't want to have cab drivers unable to at least explain a bit about the city. Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists.
- cab drivers have to keep their car clean and maintained: once again: Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists. Which means that an unclean, falling-to-pieces cab will leave a negative impression on the city as a whole. Also, not properly maintained cabs are a safety risk.
- cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B.
Uber didn't grab much of a hold in Germany because the cabs here are not the total desaster that is found in other countries. Especially, we have the Beförderungspflicht, which means that a cab driver must transport you inside the licensed area, no matter how short or long the route, and especially discrimination on race or the 'hood where the passenger is hailing the cab is forbidden. The only reason for a cab driver to deny you transportation is if you're too drunk/drugged or armed/aggressive (both of which are a danger to the cab driver) or the destination is outside the licensed area (the cab driver still may set his/her own price for such routes, but very well deny you transportation if it's too far away).
And yet this happens to me in probably one in four rides in Berlin (which adds up to a lot of rides), and not really anywhere exotic: Tegel to Kollwitzplatz for instance.
(I agree with all your points and I use MyTaxi which I find good enough, but I think the street map knowledge of Berlin taxi drivers has radically decreased in the last ten years. No idea why.)
Obligatory BER joke: Taxi drivers think they're at BER and are a bit confused why it says TXL? ;)
It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).
By your logic we shouldn't regulate smoking or guns or a million other things we regulate, for good reason.
It's not just about stupid people. It's also about people who get deceived by marketing (i.e. all of us, in some way, at some point). It's also about the market adjusting prices so that the unsafe option will be the only option available for some people, while true costs are externalized onto society.
But the point still is, as you say, we regulate a lot of things for good reason.
Yes, but it'll work the other way around - the "safe option" will become cheaper, otherwise services that provide it will go out of business. What makes you think that "unsafe option will be the only option available for some people". Feels a bit like you're demonising the free market.
stupid people will hurt them self, one way or another. You can't protect people from their own stupidity by introducing more and more regulations. Soon, you won't be able to purchase a kitchen knife.
Now we have:
- speed limits
- car making regulations
- fuel regulations
- ...
And 99% of those rules are good for society as a whole.
Regulation isn't bad in and of itself, abuse of regulation is. Focus on the real target ;)
1. In this case, there's no opting out of personal protection without endangering innocents - as long as you're using public transportation infrastructure (i.e. roads), an unmaintained and/or uninsured car is a danger to others. There is public interest in ensuring such cars do not drive alongside regular traffic.
2. Such "protection" through enforcement of some minimal standards is a cost; if you remove that floor, the market will push straight down. What you intend as a voluntary opt-out mode will become involuntary, as prices adjusts to reflect the added costs of those standards. In other words, it's not just those who're willingly opting out that will be using "unprotected" services, but also those who can't afford the "protection" but need the service.
Point 2 can be also restated as: safety standards are a cost, the market will happily get rid of it (by externalizing them onto society at large) if you allow it to.
In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to drive a car without a specific level of insurance or with safety-related maintenance issues independent of whether it is being used for some commercial purpose.
Services that are technically "rent a car with a driver" can operate like taxis, but not do on-street pickup.
Only regulations: Needs driver license, needs insurance.
For example, look at arbitration in the US.
Want a retirement account? Arbitration clause.
Bank account? Arbitration clause.
Cell phone contract? Arbitration clause.
Insurance? Arbitration clause.
Online video game account? Arbitration clause.
And most people don't realize how one sided these are until they end up on the wrong end of the legal system.
Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.
The most egregious is this one:
cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B.
This is almost always a rule to protect cab drivers in city B. And it's horribly inefficient as it means the cab spends 50% of its time empty. If driving between cities is common, fares have to be much, much higher to compensate drivers for this.
Knowledge of local roads is close to ok, it ties into being a good driver. The other items on your list are nice-to-haves, but at what cost? If tourists really want all this stuff, they can take the cab at the stand outside their hotel or at the airport instead of calling an Uber. But, speaking for myself, I'd prefer to save 10-20 euro on a trip from the airport.
Disclaimer: the closest I have come to Germany is flying through the airports. So feel free to critique my lack of local knowledge.
Most of the time, that rule doesn't hit at all - the major exceptions are the Berlin and Munich airports, which are located outside of the city borders. The remainder that gets hit by this policy are fares crossing regional boundaries on the countryside where it doesn't really matter anyway if a cab goes 5km empty.
All the major cities are in one regulation zone exactly to avoid this - which has the downside that in the mega-urbs Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Berlin the amount of knowledge required for taxi drivers is immense, and it doesn't really help that there are often enough more than 2 streets of the same name in Berlin (mostly, an aftereffect of the DDR/BRD split and reunification).
As far as I understand it, taxi.eu is an infrastructure service for dispatchers, while MyTaxi is a bit more Uber-like in that it provides a virtual dispatcher for non-affiliated (but still licensed) Taxi drivers.
* VC dollars still subsidize Uber, but even as an operational whole to < 20% of the true cost of rides. On the other hand, the equivalent taxi would cost at least $12-15.
You misspelled taxi markets.
> with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few extra bucks,
I don't know the local regulations, however isn't it still allowed to drive them at cost? Allowing the guy returning from work to cover the fuel cost by driving others? Sure its not the latest illegal getting rich quick scheme.
Sounds nice, but I never had a single Uber driver that was doing it as a "casual" thing, or just to cover his fuel expenses and make some money on the side. It's a fulltime job for the vast majority of Uber drivers.
>It's a fulltime job for the vast majority of Uber drivers.
This statement is unsupported and contrary to every driver I know. It also runs contrary to Uber's own advertising.
NYC, Bay Area: full-timers. Mid-west, PNW: "casual" part-timers
My father took a traditional taxi back home from the airport (SeaTac). The driver was on his cell phone the entire time and driving erratically. When my father went to the taxi board to report his behavior they told him "You have an appointment to stand before the board and make your case. It is Wednesday at 3:00PM". I don't know if the time exact, but the point it is during the day when most people are working. My father couldn't get that time off. The body responsible for overseeing drivers wasn't willing to take his complaint if he couldn't come and give it in person during the working day. It was an absurd policy that protected dangerous drivers. It is outrageous to me that the existing framework was clearly designed to protect bad drivers like that.
With apps these days, you can give feedback right away inside the app. No need to go downtown to meet with bureaucrats. I think there is obviously a balance to strike here, but I don't think the current system has found it.
Long way around or poor route selection, made up surcharges, putting a higher amount into a payment app than was on the meter, horrible riding experience due to BO, refusing to take me somewhere because it's too close, poor driving, or poor car condition. There is no feedback loop for these drivers.
Contrast with Uber, when I have a bad ride, I complain and usually get my money back, or at least part of it. I also feel pretty confident those drivers won't be allowed on the network after a few of those.
I realize there's another side to this, which is the drivers are overly penalized by poor reviews and some riders abuse that, but this seems a natural overreaction to the current situation of zero accountability. Uber, Lyft, or something else, whoever is providing the most pleasant riding experience at the cheapest price with convenience should win. From my experience, Taxi's are at the bottom of any list today.
Interestingly, the Uber was also consistently way cheaper (think "half or less") than unlicensed local bike taxis, so I suspect that it does provide a value to the drivers too (maybe not having to stand around on a corner hoping for a customer for hours).
Meanwhile, in Germany alone, you'd need to have multiple apps depending on which city you're in with little consistency between them.
> For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement.
Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces. You can't run a successful company and get away with this stuff, especially as a start up when everyone is out to get you even moreso.
I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.
A better approach might be an anecdote: My friend actually made the switch to Lyft, and apparently it's just as quick and effective as Uber. She hasn't had any complaints as far as I know.
Unfortunately, I had a Lyft experience that really turned me off. They matched me with a driver who was 5-10 minutes away (I believe he was at Millbrae BART). He messaged to ask where I was going, and then once I responded he moved his car slightly farther away from me, and then parked it. We waited ~10 mins. He was unable or unwilling to cancel the ride that he wouldn't give us, wouldn't respond back to me, and Lyft customer support didn't seem to care.
It was infuriating. Either do a better job matching, lower the penalties for drivers canceling, or enforce the same/worse penalties for refusing to pick up. If the driver's best course of action is to ignore your customer, you have a problem. Maybe that's changed since then, but it's not necessarily a good thing for consumers that drivers say they prefer Lyft.
I use both, infrequently, and rationalize it because my rides are being subsidized by investors. I think short of dramatic leadership changes, Uber can't fix their corruption. I'm hoping they run out of investors willing to give them cash, or they're disrupted by something even better. As long as they have the best product, I think they'll continue to grow.
At least microsoft had the civility to only screw over other software shops (and occassionally tinker with government lobbying and standardization bodies). Uber has sexism, anti-police conspiracies, oppression of its own workforce, blatantly illegal operating procedures, etc...
I have no reason to believe this, but I am waiting for the story were the uber CEO makes of with all the investors money.
Sometimes I'll chat with the drivers about what they prefer and most seem to like getting Lyft work more, but Uber has more demand.
Also Lyft do not take a percentage out of your tip compare to Uber.
-- once upon a time lyft driver
But if you're a startup that fails early, it doesn't. The thinking is that you do whatever it takes to make it, and that if your nefarious deeds ever come to light it just proves that you've made it big enough to cop some scrutiny.
I don't agree with it, but many do.
Ugh. What happened to ethics? Does no one at Berkeley teach that course anymore?
The app stopped working for me. That got me to install Lyft. Then I wondered why I hadn't earlier.
Around the time Uber started tracking users _after_ a ride, their "search for destination" feature stopped working for me. After I tapped my destination from the list of results, the app would hang indefinitely with a terrible bouncing progress bar along the top. I couldn't even summon an Uber to speak with the driver.
---
[1] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
[4] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-greyball-app-vtos-authori...
[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-in-crisis-timeline-2017-...
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-...
[7] http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...
[8] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/technology/uber-lawsuits/
[9] http://www.govtech.com/applications/uber-bans-drivers-from-c...
[10] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/uber-laws...
Also didn't help they ran a big article about leaving Postgres because they couldn't assume their engineers understand DB transactions. Their example, IIRC, was a dev sending an email inside of a DB transaction and not knowing this would consume resources and cause contention. Normalising that kind of incompetency isn't positive.
But hey, in Guatemala I've got no alternative and Uber works great and is far safer than a taxi, so hey...
> But hey, in Guatemala I've got no alternative and Uber works great and is far safer than a taxi, so hey...
Uber in Guatemala actually visits the drivers' houses, in addition to requiring police backgrounds on them and so on. It's far safer. The prices are far lower, too. Drivers make more than they'd make working in a call center, where unskilled English speakers can make $600-$700.
It's also providing some investment opportunities. Use Uber's fleet management system to buy a bunch of cars and rent them out to drivers that don't own their own car.
On the whole, Uber, in Guatemala, seems entirely positive.
(Yes, I asked about this in the last thread, but my question and the replies were about credit card/PCI agreements, not privacy laws.)
As you've mentioned, basically you can only use user's data for purposes stated in EULA (and they can't be overly abstract i.e. "we do anything we like with your data"). Though, sadly it's rare to see enforcement of data privacy laws except few show-off trials.
P.S. currently data protection laws vary a little country by country, but even more strict, EU-wide data protection laws will enter into force next year that also applies (on paper) to non-EU companies that serves EU citizens[1]. See more at http://www.eugdpr.org/
0. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/data-collection/... 1. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en....
I don't see a big problem with it. If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? If it's not OK to do the original thing then that rather than trying to avoid being punished for it is the fundamental issue.
I find it a little odd people are upset over this if they weren't similarly upset over Uber skirting regulations to begin with. Uber has been guilty of some other bad behavior toward employees, drivers and competitors that I find unacceptable, but Greyball seems fundamentally reasonable.
Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obstruction of justice", to disincentivize people from covering up their illegal activities by any means necessary.
You're right, but as other people in this thread have mentioned, Uber wasn't simply refusing service to the suspected investigators (which probably would've been fine): they were actively wasting their time, making them think a ride was on the way when it wasn't. That tips it into obstruction of justice.
I do find it amusing the Government of the US does this to basically every person and company, all the time, but if one company tries to do it back.. well, then, that's really bad and shame on them!
If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that.
And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.
Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the "right" to not follow the law.
If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?
Enforcement is not 'fraudulent use'. These analogies are very strained while the thing that took place is very simple.
that'll be like arthur andersen shredding enron's financial accounts. can't investigate if there's nothing to investigate!
If it's actually fraudulent, then, yes, you should stop it by suing and getting an injunction against the illegal government action.
If it's just enforcing the law that you are breaking, maybe you should quit breaking the law rather than engaging in elaborate technical means to conceal the violation, and expecting that won't cause additional problems when it is discovered.
The labeling can serve as evidence toward the smuggling case without needing to be its own crime.
If a LEO lies to you during the course of an investigation, do you think that you will be able to successfully claim that as fraud?
It's not their right to operate where they are prohibited, and it's also not their right to feed people believed to be enforcing that prohibition false information to prevent themselves from being busted for violating that prohibition.
Scraping APIs with fake profiles isn't the right way to go about this.
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
RICO gives federal jurisdiction over cases of interstate entities committing obstruction of justice.
If a law enforcement agency wants to catch child predators, it is entirely legitimate for them to make fake profiles of children and see who responds, and it's going to be a lot more productive than sending subpoenas to the creepiest-looking people in town saying "Are you a child predator Y/N".
In the case i'm aware of, law enforcement was investigating criminal violations of local ordinances by unlicensed uber drivers.
While i'm sure not a felony, that's definitely a criminal investigation they were seeking to stymie.
"Operating without the required licenses is a second-degree misdemeanor. Illegal drivers face a fine of up to $500 and/or 60 days in jail."
I'm not sure why you believe they are civil. They pretty much never are.
(Your example is not close to what happened here, as again, that would have been more okay. They did not warn the drivers. They hid the law violating drivers from the cops when they knew the cops were looking for them, and did so to make themselves money. It would be more akin to being able to change what the cop sees so that, at your command, all he saw was people going the speed limit, and nothing else)
Also, given how often Uber is brought up in these forums for ignoring/breaking local laws, I really would not be surprised to find that they have committed real crimes. I would be far more surprised if they had not.
This is the "it's okay to not answer questions, it's not okay to deliberately mislead"
To whom even Miranda warning will apply to ?
Or in a custodial interrogation as per wikipedia[1]. My point is not every interaction, even if you are a person, is a custodial interrogation. I can stop talking. I can move away. Or even joke (Not recommended). It would not have any legal repercussions. LEO has to warn me the mode of interaction has been changed to serious from courteous.
> the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.
First, the purpose and intentions are allegations yet to be proven in court.
What I guess the Uber can say is these features are design to deny serivce to all LEOs wheather they are on investigations or not. Uber cannot even know if some investigation is taking place. Which I can empathize with. No one wants LEOs up in their shxt if they legally can avoid them.
It may "seem so" to you. But the law "seems to" say otherwise.
Which is precisely the point.
This is more analogous to the food safety inspectors showing up, and Uber intentionally leading them to a different restaurant's kitchen - always, even when the inspector isn't there to officially inspect them.
Nothing wrong with telling a customer their shrimp plate will be done any minute now and hoping they give up and leave.
See the keyword "intent" there? If your intent with an action is to break the law, the action is illegal.
Now the part that Uber is hiding up someone elses wrongdoing makes a bit more sense, but still seems to be the same kind of thing. If investigators wanted to know, they should have gotten an order against Uber and audited their records.
After all, I encrypt communications. Sometimes with the explicit intent of making sure LE can't see what I've written. Should encryption be interfering? All the people suggesting we wipe devices before crossing a border, is that not the same?
Now, the reality is that these inspectors don't need an explicit order to inspect you. If they did, then Uber should simply take these inspectors to court or claim that any evidence they found is inadmissible. Tying up their resources and getting away is beyond simply hiding something, it's purposefully diverting their resources somewhere else. If they simply didn't respond to regulators asking for a car, maybe you would have a point, but they're tying up these resources.
Wasting the time of an abusive user? Probably okay. Kicking off law enforcement officers? Probably okay. Deliberately wasting the time of investigators? Probably crosses the line.
Compare two scenarios when an undercover officer is investigating a biker bar for dealing meth:
Scenario A: The officer seems somehow off to the bartender. Bartender glances around at his buddies, who shake their heads. "We don't want your kind in in here, get out."
Scenario B: Officer is identified as a cop. Bartender invites him to sit at a table far in the back with no view of anything. Any time the officer gets up, he's told to leave or sit back down. They have members stand within earshot of him and pretend to plan out fake meth deals at places where nothing will actually happen.
In A, the bar is on firm legal ground. In B, they're not, and that's basically what the Greyball program is.
Note: insights drawn from the earlier discussion about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13785564
Maybe the repercussions wouldn't be from the authorities, in your hypothetical situation.
How is money laundering a "fake" crime?
Or perhaps it's simpler than that. I have a bunch of money in geographic location A, and I want to spend it in B, so I put it in a suitcase and walk/fly/drive on over.
Now LE comes along and says, gee whiz, our jobs are really hard having to catch criminals doing criminal stuff. You know, let's make it illegal to use your money as you like, to have any sort of privacy in your transactions. Tada, now they can just go after people for moving money around.
The sad thing is, they've won. They've made "money laundering" sound like something serious, instead of totally made up to make their jobs easy, and people seem to support such laws.
Maybe they'll call encryption "data laundering", "bit smuggling", "safety obstruction" or something catchy to get people against it.
But that's beside the point. The crime isn't "moving money around in unconventional ways," it's lying to the IRS and other government agencies. It's signing your name on all those tax documents that say "under penalty of perjury" after filling them in with false information.
Now LE comes along and says, gee whiz, our jobs are really hard having to catch criminals doing criminal stuff. You know, let's make it illegal to use your money as you like, to have any sort of privacy in your transactions. Tada, now they can just go after people for moving money around.
Edit: Keep in mind if your original money you evaded taxes on, that's already a crime. As is committing crimes, if that's how you got the money. "Laundering" is just a non-crime used to make LE's job easy, expanding power and reducing privacy. AML and KYC laws are an affront to liberty.
So, assuming that money isn't illicitly gotten, I'm pretty sure that's not money laundering.
You can say it's "not your job" all you like--if you are operating in the United States, you are not correct and it would go very poorly for you to try.
1. I'm not sure why you'd do that. You'd have to pay taxes on the money twice as ordering pizzas is not tax deducible.
2. You'd then have to make 1000 pizzas.
(At least in the U.S. Do EU citizens have to report themselves for such transactions?)
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/cash-contro...
In Greece they have even extended this to other comodities such as gold and you have to report it regardless if you're moving it or not, otherwise they can freely confiscate it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-01/greeks-told-declare...
No, but transactions over X € must be conducted using a traceable medium - cheques, credit cards, bank transfer, sometimes Bitcoin. X varies by country.
Conducting transactions above X € in cash doesn't automatically constitute criminal money laundering, of course, it just gets fined.
As for eliminating cash, yes we try to do that, but the reason given is not money laundering. The two reason/excuses which are commonly given are 1) preventing tax evasion and 2) preventing store robberies. Also note that the ones most heavily pushing for elimination of cash is not our government but our banks. I think card payments are much more profitable for banks compared to cash. But it is not like our government makes a secret about that its regulations surrounding cash payments are there to prevent tax fraud.
And the worst country for when it comes to hunting taxes is probably the US. A couple of days ago I had to sign two forms when opening a bank account where I guaranteed that I had no ties to America. Many smaller European banks wont even accept American citizens as customers due to the extra paper work to report stuff to the American IRS.
I wonder if that's been used against Uber drivers.
If you put into action a plan that's intent is to mislead investigators that you believe are attempting to investigate you, then how do you claim that this can't be obstruction of justice? They are attempting to obstruct the investigation.
What you are doing to trying to evaluate the action separate from the intent, and claim that it's innocuous because there could be many explanations for the action.
Obviously at trial, the DoJ would be trying to prove intent, so trying to ignore it doesn't really make sense.
Also, even though law is like computer code in being pretty specific and executable, it's unlike computer code in being executed by humans.
Or, like XKCD puts it, https://xkcd.com/1494/.
Or, more simply, judges are not stupid and can figure out if you're playing games with them.
mens rea ("guilty mind") and actus reus ("guilty act")
http://law.jrank.org/pages/22506/Criminal-Law-Elements-Crime...
If there's no actus reus in your example, then there's no crime.
Your points relating to Uber stand, I'm just wondering how it'd work in the case of an individual feeling like they are being shadowed.
Then you have your lawyer make that argument in court and try to convince the jury.
No, they have to provide service to everyone, equally. Imagine a situation: a cake store decides not to prepare a cake for gay wedding.
Yes, the regulations can be argued to be whacky, but I don't see how they infringe on civil rights. Rosa Parks couldn't stop being African American but Uber can switch to another business plan.
Actually I guess it's been awhile. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 was in 2014, wow.
beenz
flooz
webvan
pets.com (albeit, their business model has been vindicated by amazon many years later)
Every startup he's run has been built around breaking the law
And you know neither of them were going to pull any punches.
John Gruber quipped that cancelling that interview was probably the smartest thing Kalanick has done in a while. I see that point, but I slightly disagree. If Uber could come up with some kind of decent response to all of the recent shitstorms including this one, that would be a great platform to spread the message.
Cancelling reads to me like they are afraid to answer tough questions because they have no good answers.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tangle with Kara Swisher in particular. She's tenacious; she doesn't care who you are or how big your company is; she will tear your intestines out your butthole and feed them to you while the entire technology world watches. I love her. She and Walt are shining examples of a free press holding the feet of the powerful to the fire when needed.
The rest of the media could learn a thing or two from them.
But back to the point, yeah, I bet he's glad he doesn't have to respond to this as well.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who think of either one of them as assholes.
You sound like Trump or Spicer. "Wahhhh. You asked a hard question! I don't like you any more! Go away!"
There are different levels of PCI, each with requirements for risk mitigation.
Edit: Fixed an apostrophe.
PCI is concerned with reducing fraud cost. Visa does not care if the business charging your card is shady, only that it doesn't result in extra costs to Visa.
Uber was using the CC information to LOOK UP MORE INFORMATION ON THE USER.
Comparing that to someone simply refusing service is completely outlandish, uncalled for, and indicates a level of bias that is wholly unhealthy for both sides in this discussion.
PCI is not concerned about protecting the user. It's about protecting credit card companies. Visa does not care that Uber uses credit card information for nefarious business purposes. They care that Uber doesn't leak the credit card information they possess.
But I still suspect it would run afoul of some privacy laws, to collect someone's credit card number to process payment, while also using it to see if they might be a cop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14270250
It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.
I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right...
They sought out LEO people, tagged them, and served up misleading data to them, for the obvious purpose of evading them and wasting their time.
Your analogy doesn't match what happened. Try one where you seek out someone you research first, believe is an LEO, and then deliberately lead them away from something they might think is criminal or some other violation.
Could HN get in trouble for hellbanning/shadowbanning the wrong people too?
If you look up his Facebook profile, find out that he's a health inspector, and deny him on the basis that he is a health inspector, what then?
(and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you).
Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them.
If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible
If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you say "3000 miles away in a storm drain" to deliberately mislead them, congrats, there are plenty of jurisdictions where you have committed obstruction.
If every time they come around, you deliberately cover the spots with blood and the murder weapon hiding spot, ....
Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.
You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.
Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?
Technically the law breakers are the Uber drivers, no? If so, then Uber is aiding them avoiding the cops.
Actually, Uber tracked the people who were around police stations, or likely to be officers, and gave them fake data.
So you have it the wrong way around :)
"Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?"
The problem here is that uber was helping to cover up someone else's crime. The crime was committed by the uber drivers (usually a misdemeanor of not having proper licensing). Uber is helping cover up that crime. It is also, even worse for uber, the case that they made money by doing so.
If every time people that look like they might be cops come around investigating your friend, you hide your friends drugs, yes, you are committing obstruction
If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible
I'm not a lawyer, but Ken White of Popehat is and he has a lot to say on the subject:
https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/
Specific insight why you should really shut the fuck up until competent counsel is present is provided in this post:
https://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-...
Edited to add this other relevant link:
https://www.popehat.com/2007/10/26/shutupshutupshutupshutup/
Let's look at the stratospheric levels of dumbness that Uber got up to here. This is a handy checklist of things not to do if you're engaging in criminal activity:
Document their crimes by talking about them openly on official, archived communication channels such as email.
Make the criminal activity official corporate policy.
Write software to support their criminal activity, with no reasonable believable cover story.
Give their criminal conspiracy a project codename.
Even garden variety street gangs aren't this idiotic. Imagine the police pulling someone in for questioning and opening up their bag to find a notebook. Page 1 of the notebook begins with this heading: "Project Keys: Smuggling Heroin into the United States". Page 2 of the notebook is an extended description of the exact methods used to smuggle heroin past border security. Page 3 of the notebook is a list of dates, times, and individuals who have smuggled heroin into the US. And so on. No drug dealer is that stupid, because that would put you in jail for a very long time if it fell into the hands of law enforcement. And yet, here we are, Uber really is that stupid.
Why aren't the authorities going over the ACTUAL, honest-to-god mafia startup? Sorry, I realize it's off topic here, but my first thought when I read "Justice Dept begins criminal probe" -- was FINALLY!
We all know which company I'm referring to. And all I said was "employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them". There's only one company like that in our "community". Why are they allowed to behave that way with immunity?
(Sorry to hijack this thread. Also, I have no disclaimer to make and am not associated with either company.)
That being said, I rarely bother opening yelp since I'm usually on Google maps in the first place and in my area they have plenty of reviews.
One possibility is that their competitors don't have friends in very high places. Uber is stinky but as you point out hardly the stinkiest. But Uber clearly has very powerful enemies.
If you believe that Yelp should be barred from preferential reviewing in your jurisdiction, talk to a legislator. (I would agree with you and vote to that effect in my own.)
I don't think Google is so bad. They're just doing what's good for their investors.
I'm not sure about the actual situation with Yelp, but as long as they're not making up negative reviews (which could be slander), it might be ok, legally. Given their size in that market, anti-trust concerns might come into play, though.
Ignoring the illegality of interfering with law enforcement, this is bad customer service. Not only would I resent the invasion of privacy, but that algorithm is going to have a meaningful number of false-positives. It's a crappy way to deal with customers - if you think there's a problem, tell them you are denying service.
It's hard to imagine another business doing this. Does a restaurant just not bring food? An online store just not send the clothes? I know you are thinking about shadowbanning, which I also think is crappy, but at least it's much less consequential.
Morality and legality in software is a massive frontier we hardly pause to think about.
The code is the property of the company. Whoever ordered it be created and/or used would be culpable.
It's spelled out in black and white in your employee agreement.
EDIT - I also wouldn't expect something as flimsy as a piece of paper to actually protect me my the likes of Steve Kalanick. He seems like the type to screw anyone over if he can gain from it. If I were those programmers I would get a laywer no matter what any agreement said.
For the future, please consider that starting a post with "Wrong" is not polite and not conducive to meaningful discussion. It also doesn't make you any more or less correct.
Also, I think it's more accurate to say that Uber rejected Austin, since Austin merely voted in regulation it did not want to comply with.
Is it true that UT-Austin has partnered with the rideshare company (Fasten?) to analyze the ride share data?
(Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
> Company seemingly undergoes systemic effort to break such laws in cities across state lines
> Fed gets involved to investigate possibility of racketeering
Not seeing the problem here...?
Nope. Let the cities enforce their own laws.
Their service was illegal under local law, Uber moved the money from their illegal activity in to the banking system and across state lines and a slew of other things that would likely trigger the very broad money laundering laws. Interstate transfer of proceeds from a criminal activity is almost certainly an activity the feds can look into.
I'm guessing the feds can also "assist" the local jurisdictions in the case that the local criminals are an interstate organization that has been committing a slew of crimes across the nation.
Sounds like they don't know yet.
Fair point. Personally I still think this is overreach but I can follow the legal footing on that.
Here's to hoping that one of Travis Kalanick's numerous criminal actions (such as his decision to steal Google's self-driving tech) comes home to roost. There's now a material chance that Ubers investors (and many employees) will get zeroed out due to their reckless, willful, criminal actions.
And frankly, that's fucking hilarious.
When was this proven? So far, those are nothing but allegations in a civil suit.
If you knew anything about civil litigation, you'd know that what is alleged in lawsuit filings is utterly pointless drivel as far as trying to use it to substantiate a point in a debate. Lawsuit allegations don't have to be factually true, which is why I asked where the allegation has actually been proven.
use of the internet in general being one of them. "but that means the feds could..." yes, yes it does
Any organization that is suspected of committing one of a list of crimes enumerated in that article, and engages in activity across state lines, falls under federal jurisdiction. In this case, I'm guessing the charge is obstruction of justice. But I'm not a lawyer, and they could be using something other than RICO to press this case
It might also fit into the federal wire fraud statute (which would also potentially get it into RICO territory.)
different from
.. using a "radar used to detect highway patrol"?
The scale, however, is substantially different between you with a radar detector and Uber's behavior. If you use a radar detector illegally and are caught, you will be fined maybe $150 as a civil infraction (no criminal penalties).
If Uber gets convicted of obstruction of justice and violation of RICO statutes, that is now serious federal offenses with very serious criminal penalties (felonies).
[1] The irony of your analogy is that Uber's business model is to legally enable "independent contractors" (drivers) to operate an illegal taxi service. Uber is legally brokering an illegal taxi service (the brokering is not breaking taxi service laws).
In your analogy, Uber is the radar detector manufacturer and the drivers are the drivers. The drivers are operating illegally in both cases. If Uber stuck to "manufacturing radar detectors" (brokering rides), they would be legal. Instead, in addition to making "radar detectors", they set up "radar jammers" and directly operated the jammers in highly patrolled areas. That is directly illegal and thus Uber is at direct risk of criminal prosecution.
One can argue (and in my opinion, quite rightfully so) that it's not Uber's responsibility to offer anyone "correct data", especially when someone is trying to use it maliciously against them or their clients. To give another shot at an analogy, the radar manufacturing company doesn't owe the police a working radar (which also happens to be "free" in Uber's case).
That essentially is what their software did. It didn't just alert the driver that the person requesting a ride may be law enforcement, it seems it actually showed the officer incorrect data to mislead them about the vehicles' whereabouts.
And for the record, radar detectors actually are illegal in many states.
Current team did the impossible and bootstrapped the company to where it is via hustle, working in the grey (and black apparently) and pure drive. They should be commended not for their methods but just the for the fact that they actually succeeded in the environment they worked in, one stacked against them.
Uber is a real company now and they need to hand it off to a proven leadership team that can guide it moving forward. Give the current leaders a golden parachute but the time has come to transition.
The only thing more embarrassing for authorities than having propped up a corrupt medallion taxi system for decades is this sort of probe.
In order to disrupt the corrupt medallion system it took billions of dollars and algorithms to evade the officials who had been tasked by the corrupt medallion industry to leverage small compliance technicalities to sabotage Uber in specific markets.
Every municipality that had a medallion system that was disrupted by Uber was effectively humiliated. Uber revealed just how inefficient and profligate those systems are.
The quality of car service everywhere Uber serves is supremely better than it had been before Uber. We can now get a car in minutes and see the ETA update as the driver approaches.
So many of us found it infuriating to call 333-TAXI (or equivalent) and be told "5 to 30 minutes" no matter how much demand was going on. Then when the cab failed to show up after 40 minutes, a follow-up call would yield "it should be another 5 to 30 minutes" after which the operator would simply hang up.
It took Uber's vision (and YC's vision in supporting it) to move the world forward into the future. We should all realize that the officials Uber had to fool using its algorithms were the foot soldiers of backwardness and corruption.
If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app, its neither that protectable or even all that innovative. Afterall Google was the 11st search engine. Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. And now every competitor, be it Lyft or taxi companies, offers the same service, with exactly the same drivers & exactly the same cars.
Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber because a few years ago it was a hassle to get a taxi?If Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps?
Uber
It is :)
> If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app
That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry.
> its neither that protectable or even all that innovative
Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself. Once this was in place (the protection) innovation was irrelevant as anyone who has ridden in a medallion cab pre-Uber can attest.
> Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable.
Are you expressing doubt about whether people will need taxi style transit? I'd say it's one of the most proven business models in the world. The "subsidy" you mention allows Uber to grow more quickly than it otherwise would, but late stage investors are not stupid and would not pour money in if the economics were not sound.
I don't actually care whether Uber ends up profitable in the long term or not. I'm not an investor, though I am a happy customer. But I do want a fair fight, and the DOJ picking on Uber is a major misallocation of resources.
> Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber
Not at all. I myself am not "loyal". A few months ago I made a post on HN in which I reached the conclusion that Travis probably ought to go. But making that argument does not mean I don't have tremendous respect for the company he built and the obstacles he overcame to make it happen. Travis is clearly an amazingly talented person who seems to have some blind spots as a manager. But let's not pretend someone like Eric Schmidt would ever start a company like Uber.
Seasoned, wise managers are relevant when a company has generally plateaued. This does not justify the harm caused by bad HR practices and poor judgment in dealing with the treatment of women at Uber, but let's not forget that one of the problematic hires (perhaps scapegoats) at Uber had come from Schmidt's google where he'd had many years of success but had not disclosed the disciplinary circumstances of his departure from Google.
> Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps
This is farfetched, and not what I was arguing. My point is that Uber came up with a way to fight against one of the most entrenched industries in the world and win. This is generally what startups are supposed to do... create Schumpeterian growth which leaves a trail of destruction of the old edifices of power.
It may be that Uber simply won the first round of battles but that the war will eventually be won by the cronies and insiders who cozy up to local politicians and held the taxi industry hostage for so long. They have not given up easily. In some cities they are still strong and don't plan to go anywhere.
Before you decide to jump on the bandwagon against Uber, think about the many areas of life in which entrenched and backward systems oppress us and hold back progress. You are helping them drag us back into the darkness.
Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it.
Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the same cars are already and would still be available on Lyft & the taxi co's apps. And only time'll tell whether Uber matters.
No offense was meant by my phrasing, FYI.
> Thankfully we have choices
Yes we do. I think we likely agree on the overall benefits of Uber, but you are more inclined to focus on Lyft as a better instantiation of the idea and I'm just sort of defending Uber because it's fun to do so when everyone hates it.
I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits.
As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important.
At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
Has there not been a very profound anti-Uber bandwagon effect going on? Several incidents snowballing into a major backlash? I think there is some sort of organized labor sponsorship of a smear campaign, fwiw.
> I don't think there are overall benefits
I'm curious how you reach this conclusion. Is it as a consumer, comparing Uber to traditional taxi offerings in your area? Or based on some other viewpoint?
> I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation
I think innovation is the wrong word as well. Uber is a political and economic achievement of breaking a very entrenched system that had oppressed many people so that a small number could extract profits at the expense of society as as a whole.
> democracy and the rule of law are ... important
Absolutely. I view corrupt laws and crony capitalism as antithetical to the rule of law even if the laws which happen to be on the books support specific arrangements. The taxi market was a golden goose being plucked by corrupt officials and a small number of fat cat owners at the expense of everyone else.
These sorts of crony/entrenched arrangements are a form of organized crime, as are the regulators who enforce unfair laws meant to funnel money into the coffers of specific crony firms.
> my version of this being fun is being understood.
I think I understand your points. But I'm not sure how you weigh your various points against each other in terms of their influence on your overall view. I don't disagree with any of them outright, but I think you weigh literal compliance with law too highly.
Also, on the subject of Uber's corporate culture, Uber has been punished significantly already for the revelations about its culture. As much as I admire Uber's accomplishments, I would very likely not want to work there.
One time I got a coding quiz easter egg in the Uber app and scored well and was invited to apply, but after what I've heard I would be unlikely to consider it, since I personally view the tolerance of sexual harassment behavior by companies to be one of the biggest indicators of larger culture problems and a "law of the jungle" environment where social dominance trumps merit when it comes to how decisions are made.
Overall, I think that the good done by Uber around the world (primarily for consumer surplus, maybe not so much for drivers) totally dwarfs the various complaints I've heard about breaking local regulations. In practice, it takes an enormous amount of time and energy to roll back regulations in one jurisdiction (just look at the state of occupational licensing in various US states). In that environment, it takes someone with fairly thick skin to "just build the thing" and show consumers what they were missing. Personal failings aside, I think we owe Travis and the rest of Uber an enormous debt for showing us what's possible.
I'd say Lyft is a completely different investment than Uber. Lyft has made smart decisions but is generally "drafting" behind Uber. I'm not an investor in either, but one is good at leading, the other is good at following.
What percentage of laws in the US do you think it is reasonable to break? Unless you answer 0% you should justify your comment by explaining why the laws that Uber broke are just and important.
The laws Uber broke to evade regulators are laws that were put in place at the behest of the corrupt taxi industry to protect it from competition.
I do think Uber has made (and continues to make) a strategic mistake by not becoming the market leader in gig economy support services/systems for its drivers.
But there is nothing stopping an Uber driver from setting up a SEP IRA, signing up for ACA, etc. Those costs are the same whether the employee is 1099 or W2. Many Uber drivers already have a 9-5 job and their Uber money is extra income. But for drivers who are full time, 1099 status can lead to bad life planning.
I'm not praising W2 employment as a panacea though, as I fear you might be. Many companies offer mediocre or nonexistent life planning (pensions, tax planning, health insurance) options, and so it was really an opportunity for Uber to go above and beyond.
I think the future of systems like Uber (service discovery, dispatch, bidirectional karma, etc.) will ultimately be handled through non-profit infrastructure. Without corrupt local medallion services to compete against, an Uber-size war chest is not really needed.
Uber could also have allocated a class of stock for drivers and awarded some fraction for each dollar earned, allowing drivers (especially early ones) to get in on the leverage. But it didn't, and it's likely too late.
> There are methods to changing the law if you disagree.
I'm curious what percentage of laws you think are just and/or should be obeyed on principle and not as part of a cost-of-punishment calculus.
There isn't a single law that I obey as part of a cost-of-punishment calculus. Of the laws I know to any meaningful degree, I'd judge maybe 70% as essentially good, defer to those who wrote them on about 20% that deal with subject matter I'm unfamiliar with, and (would) follow around 9% even though I disagree, because they were democratically enacted.
Of course there's a vast universe of law I'm completely unaware of, such as the financial sector. But whenever I had to deal with some more specialised parts of the law, I found them to be mostly reasonable.
Just because we hate the "taxi cartel" and just because Uber provides an easy-to-use, convenient service, does not justify their actions.
As a community, I think we really need to reexamine the whole "break things" and "ask forgiveness, not permission" culture that YC and the rest of the SV has endorsed as normal, operating procedure.
It's gotten to the point where if you're not willing to bend and break rules, that's seen as some sort of weakness.
Remember, rule of law, is the bedrock of a democratic civil-society. To erode that foundation, is to welcome a whole spate of nastiness that I know none of us want.
If I were them, I would be more worried that they can't kill competitors well enough to ever be highly profitable.
Travis is a criminal who has marketed his breaking of labor laws, civil laws as "disruption".
Maybe this is what will happen you get billions of investment dollars without earning through old fashioned way of making profits. Financialism has blinded America.
* laws against child labor
* laws against prostitution
* minimum wage laws
* background check laws
As these all prohibit some subset of people from trading a service for money. My question is: would repealing any of these laws actually affect you or your job? I'm guessing not.
But laws against prostitution and low wage work (aka minimum wage) are absolutely infringements of personal liberty, even if they directly affect only a tiny subset of the population.
Please don't post ideological talking points to HN. This kind of generic argument is never interesting and therefore always off topic on the site.
Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees??
I think going after average or in many cases poor people trying to make a buck driving Uber is an "aggressive tactic"
Sure, just like a mob boss has a responsibility to protect himself and his underlings.
When the "harm" is enforcing the law (issuing tickets for illegal behavior), do you sincerely believe this?
If so, where's the line? Can my employer delay the cops at the front door while I head out the back over:
- Parking tickets?
- Drug use?
- Fraud?
- Theft?
- Assault?
- Murder?
How much interference with law enforcement do you believe employers should be allowed to get away with?
If LEOs decide they want to waste everyone's time in what's basically entrapment, I've no problem with people wasting their time back.
Imagine they were doing that to a pizza place, ticketing delivery drivers? How bad would the pizza place be for letting the phone ring? For saying "Yeah, we'll get that right out to you..." and doing nothing?
(I don't know enough to say whether (or to what degree) the system was misapplied; it might well have been. Just that not all law enforcement use is automatically legitimate...)
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travi...
This is exactly what K street is paid to stop.
This is actually really important for this community to understand, because a nontrivial # of founders read this. Don't get politically involved to enable bad behaviour -- not only is it wrong, but it won't work. Listen to your lawyers and conscientious objectors, and build a company around good products that people love.