Headline is pretty misleading. The full quote is "On the surface it looks like you covered this up"
1. Paid an employee 4.5M after sending accusatory email to CEO
2. Levandowski used Wickr for an unknown purpose, an app no longer used within the company
3. Said email to CEO hidden from discovery during trial
None of this is 100% proof, but the body of evidence that is growing makes it harder and harder to reasonably believe that Uber is innocent here.
That said yes the quote as stated is misleading of what Alsup actually said. I just wish the headline was about the points above, not his quote.
With widespread surveillance and hacking there are a hundred other reasons besides hiding evidence from an IP trial for using an app like that.
Uber's claims the letter from the security employee, who highlighted the use of 'special laptops' and self-destruction messaging apps, was of an 'extortionist' nature and led to him getting a payout. Calling that employee a 'whistleblower' is another potential spin.
Which is why that statement rightfully includes "On the surface...".
Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. And I don't think we should ignore that
> Jacobs: Uber's use of encrypted ephemeral systems was dessigned to protect sensitive info and ensure we didn’t create a paper trail that wd come back to haunt the co in any potential civil or criminal investigation. [0]
> Judge quotes Jacob's atty letter: Uber employees went to Pittsburgh to educate the AV group about ephemeral, encrypted communications "to prevent Uber's unlawful schemes from seeing the light of day" [1]
In that letter, likely written by his attorney who also got $3 million, had a clear incentive to twist the narrative of using an app like Wickr to make it seem as malicious and damaging as possible.
Uber also went to federal prosecutors with his letter to preempt him from using it for further personal gain. They didn't try to hide from it.
I'm not saying it wasn't used for malicious purposes but I'd take those allegations in the letter with a grain of salt.
Seriously? What ever happened to due process?
So, there are a lot of legit questions as to why Lewandowski was using it to communicate? With whom was he speaking? When and why did he decide to use self destroying communication?
I'd imagine the best practice for hiring a employee that could have a potential conflict of interest or be in violation of an employment agreement would be to document the great lengths the new company went to make sure there was no IP violations and keep records of everything. Though, one could argue that Uber saw value in destroying evidence and create doubting, where the truth would most certainly be damning.
The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before?
Add that to all the other context of the case, and malicious use is a lot more likely to me.
> Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons.
If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil suit and subject to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I find a hard time making an argument that it's more likely Uber didn't use Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google.
Does every company that switches from one messaging system to another need a nefarious reason?
“I can’t trust anything you say because it’s been proven wrong so many times,” he told Uber. “You’re just making the impression that this is a total cover-up.”
Which also seems quite damning. https://www.ft.com/content/3d4cb174-d636-11e7-a303-9060cb1e5...
When he says "On the surface it looks like you covered this up" he is putting Uber and their lawyers on notice that they had better convince him that they did not in fact cover it up or their world will be filled with hurt.
Update: See "Ethics in Discovery: Where the Rubber Meets the Road"[1] page 17
In an extreme example of discovery related misconduct experienced by the Commission, the defendant intentionally withheld relevant evidence through tampering with documents, lodging baseless objections to production, purposefully misleading the court and the parties, and delaying in responding to permissible discovery requests.
Sounds familiar... and Fry's got hit with some serious sanctions (trial sanctions, not the fines).
Ultimately, the Court struck the affirmative defense to the harassment claim, deemed improperly withheld documents presumptively admissible at trial, ordered a jury instruction that one of the justifications for firing a plaintiff was pretextual, permitted EEOC to argue adverse inference at trial, and imposed $100,000 in sanctions ($25,000 to each of three plaintiffs and $25,000 to the court). In addition, the Court appointed a special master to review and report to the court about defendant’s compliance with outstanding discovery requests.
[1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law...
Its not the first time they have mislead the court.
...
however: yadadada.
That's often how an on the surface statement is construed.
Wouldn't that pass more-or-less the same message? I don't see how the omission is significant, let alone "pretty misleading".
"it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way.
It seems to me that what he is saying is, in the absence of some sort of convincing exculpatory evidence or argument that so far has not been presented, it looks like a cover-up. I don't think I agree with your analysis here.
Do you happen to work for Uber?