Hacker News Reader

Comment by xixi77 | Hacker News Reader

What exactly part of this is criminal? I mean, isn't any business free to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they like (for example government employees, hackers, or Democrats), as long as they are not in one of several protected categories like sex/race/national origin/etc.? Or is this violating consumer privacy laws when CC info is used this way?

View on HN

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating.

(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, ....

But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? Surely if an unidentified police officer comes up and asks you something, lying to them can't be illegal.

Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?

"But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? "

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

> 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.

Exactly.

Thank you both for the explanation.

IANAL but deliberately lying and deceiving with intent as part of a commercial transaction is generally concenered fraud.

  If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible

Absolutely defensible. You are under no obligation to talk to law enforcement and as a matter of fact it's highly advisable that you don't say anything at all until you have a competent lawyer present.

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/

> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible

Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.

5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.

The fifth only protects you from self-incrimination.

I think the fifth is interpreted more broadly than that. You don't need to have a specific law in mind that you believe you have broken (and would reveal) to take the fifth; you merely need to believe that it is possibly that what you say might be incriminating in some way. Which, given the fact that no person could reasonably be expected to know the whole of the law, and given that lying to a federal agent in the performance of their duties is always illegal, is a pretty safe bet.

Yes. You don't have to talk to cops. But that doesn't make you any less an accessory in this example.

You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.

5th amendment applies to self-incrimination. You can absolutely be compelled to testify against someone else.

I'm not an legal expert, but knowingly obstructing investigations by law enforcement seems like the sort of thing that'd get you in trouble.

I think if greyball popped a "sorry, access denied" message there wouldn't be much controversy.

It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.

But the employees in question didn't even identify themselves as such, did they? Like, if a random person on the street asks you what's your name etc., are you required to answer truthfully just because that person could be an undercover officer? Or even if you strongly suspect he could be one?

I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right...

Uber targeted them specifically though, via geofencing, bin numbers that matched leo credit unions, etc.

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.

Wow, I didn't realize it went that far. They are in deep shit.

Not letting the health inspector in your restaurant is not exercising your right to refuse service.

But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector, but you have a suspicion he might be, and doesn't say they are when you refuse service, could you still refuse service?

Could HN get in trouble for hellbanning/shadowbanning the wrong people too?

I think there's a great deal of mental fun to be had thinking about formal and informal social rules as some sort of underhanded C contest. But you can't lose sight of the fact it's not how such rules are generally applied in reality. The intent of the rule and the intent of the potential rule-breaker matter a lot.

This. I've found discussing law with programmers a frustrating experience more often than not. Yes, I'm impressed that your pedantic mind has found all the logical and definitional loopholes, but now back to the real world, where that's just not going to fly with a judge or in any other context where high-level intent and psychological deliberation is considered.

> But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector

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?

Of course not; surely it is a condition of your food service license to allow inspectors on premises, so you'll lose it if you don't let them in (I doubt you'll get charged with a federal crime for it though). I don't see much in common with the Uber situation though.

It depends on how you can get that information, though. Recall that we are talking about a corporation, not a physical person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com