
Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities - techlover14159
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-tech-crime-exclusive-idUSKBN1802U1
======
gotothedoctor
Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being
criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.*

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...](https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosections&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=preet+bharara+rico+prosecutions)
)

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)

~~~
will_brown
Forget software, here in Miami where Uber drivers were initially operating
illegally (cited with violating 2 municipal ordinances each being a ~$1,010
civil fine, but escalates to criminal charge after the 3rd such violation)
Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at
airport take down phone; have drivers sit up front; etc...). I imagine there
are similar emails for every county, city that were actively citing drivers
for legal violations.

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.

~~~
thesmallestcat
I would hope the drivers always sit up front!

~~~
will_brown
I think rider auto corrected to driver...here is a link to a copy of the
alleged Uber email to Miami driver's [1].

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...](https://uberpeople.net/threads/welcome-to-miami-
international-heres-a-2-020-ticket-for-operating-an-unlicensed-vehicle-for-
hire.2618/page-6)

~~~
fstuff
Wow. I read that link and they flat out tell their people how to get around
the airport ban. They tell the drivers not to have the app in view, keep it in
your cup holder, ask the passenger to sit up front and say your a friend if
asked. Drop the passenger off as far away from the terminal door if possible.
And if you do get caught they'll provide you with a lawyer and pay the 1100
dollar fine up to 3 times before deactivating you. That last one is messed up,
like sorry you're fired for not being sneaky enough

~~~
will_brown
Here is what's even worse:

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.

------
naskwo
Last weekend, I visited Hamburg with my wife. I was surprised when I was told
that I couldn't catch an Uber. However, on each German taxi (you know, the
beige ones) there was a sticker prompting me to download the "EUTaxi" (or
similarly named) app, which I did.

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.

~~~
laser
I generally agree with your sentiment, but just to give another perspective I
thought I should point out that there's a significant difference between those
that can afford to travel to Europe and hail a ride from a "professionally
licensed driver", and those that can afford to spend $3.41* to pool home from
Boston to Cambridge at 2:30am on a Thursday night, with a guy returning home
from work looking to make a few extra bucks, and three pickups along the way
happy to get home affordably. Those of the latter type are far more numerous,
and far more harmed by the increased prices due to regulation of ride sharing
markets, than the typical financially well-off hackernewsian would generally
be aware of.

* 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.

~~~
halflings
> with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few extra bucks, and
> three pickups along the way happy to get home affordably

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.

~~~
Karunamon
Casual Uber driver here who works full time in sysadmin/software engineering.
Hello!

> _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.

~~~
pkkim
I used to work at Uber and heard anecdotally that despite the advertising,
something like 50% of Uber rides in the Bay Area are done by the top ten
percent of drivers. And they do work a lot. So the vast majority might be part
time but they don't do most of the work.

------
samrap
At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until:

> 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.

~~~
eridius
Why haven't you quit yet? There's been more ugly stuff coming out about Uber
over the past few years than basically the entire of the rest of the tech
industry combined.

~~~
sillysaurus3
I mean, we can say "It's wrong for you to keep using the thing on your phone
that's installed and works," but all that will do is make people conceal that
they still use Uber.

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.

~~~
e28eta
I've had ethical qualms about Uber for a long time, but I've always gotten
good service.

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.

~~~
eridius
Why didn't you just cancel?

~~~
tkxxx7
I believe after 5-10 minutes, there is a fee.

~~~
eridius
If you're cancelling because the driver isn't showing up, there's no fee. I've
definitely cancelled rides after waiting 10 minutes and I've never ever been
hit with a fee. My vague understanding is if it's clear the driver isn't going
to get to you within the ETA, then cancelling is ok, but since I've never been
presented with a fee in the first place, I've never sought clarification on
that.

------
nostromo
I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is
allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.)

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.

~~~
analogist
So you would be fine with your local restaurant "denying service" and locking
the doors only when the food safety inspectors show up?

~~~
bduerst
What they're talking about is a red herring.

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.

~~~
MichaelGG
It's more like the restaurant suspecting someone of investigating them and
giving them a different class of service. The analogy is totally busted
though, because these investigators didn't show up at Uber and ask for info,
they just went around using the service.

Nothing wrong with telling a customer their shrimp plate will be done any
minute now and hoping they give up and leave.

~~~
pimmen89
Yes there is if you believe that customer to be a health inspector and you
move set up your shop somewhere else with the intent of evading said health
inspector.

See the keyword "intent" there? If your intent with an action is to break the
law, the action is illegal.

~~~
MichaelGG
Of course the intent is to avoid them. Why should that by itself be illegal?
If they want to review your business they can do an official inspection.
Interfering with an investigation, as long as you don't have an order not to
do so (i.e. to preserve evidence or something) should be your freedom.

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?

~~~
pimmen89
When you encrypt the message, you are not exactly stringing people along
wasting their time. When they say that they'll send a car to the inspector,
they are tying up regulators' resources in order to sneak away. That's
interfering with their work.

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.

------
pimmen89
I see the civil disobedience argument thrown around here now. Are you
seriously saying that running a business without complying to regulations is a
civil right?

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.

------
sillysaurus3
It's so strange how quickly all of this happened.

Actually I guess it's been awhile.
[https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496)
was in 2014, wow.

~~~
defen
You know, I remember posting on this site _years_ ago that the Uber CEO was a
terrible person (Based on a few interactions I had with him back when UberCab
had about 5 employees) and being told by some prominent people that I was
wrong. This was back when YC was talking about how "niceness" was a key
quality in successful founders. Feels good to have my instincts vindicated.

~~~
walrus01
Uber is the prototypical example of what happens when you give a pack of
fratbros too much VC money. The exact same thing happened in the late-1990s
dotcom boom (And bust, 2000-2001), people have not learned their lesson.

beenz

flooz

webvan

pets.com (albeit, their business model has been vindicated by amazon many
years later)

~~~
defen
I think it was roughly 3 years ago that some people were saying Uber would be
the first trillion dollar company...

------
ianamartin
Kalanick must have known this was on its way when he backed out of the Code
Conference a few days ago. Even with just the events of the last few months,
he was already going to be on the hot seat facing Kara Swisher and Walt
Mossberg.

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.

~~~
mahyarm
I too would not like to go to a party where the host doesn't like me and has
an asshole reputation.

~~~
ianamartin
Just because someone is willing to tear you a new asshole doesn't mean that
person is an asshole.

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!"

------
linkregister
This is really big; if they were misusing credit card records like that, they
risk losing accreditation from their PCI systems. There is probably some
criminal aspect to violating PCI as well. Does anyone here know more about how
PCI works?

~~~
dpark
I'm not sure this is relevant to PCI. PCI is about the security of credit card
information. Do you store it safely, is access restricted, etc. I don't think
PCI is concerned with whether you're doing ethically shady stuff with the data
so long as it's stored and transferred in compliant ways.

~~~
braveo
If they were using the CC information for nefarious identification I would
think that would fall under "is access restricted".

~~~
dpark
Not really. If someone hands you their credit card and you refuse to sell to
them because their card has a Star of David on it, you are doing something
nefarious with CC information but not violating PCI.

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.

~~~
braveo
I'm sorry, but THAT is about the most ridiculous use of a strawman I've ever
seen.

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.

~~~
dpark
It's not a straw man at all. Uber literally denied services based on who
issued customers' credit cards (allegedly). That they recognized the bank as a
police credit union instead of recognizing the Star of David as a Jewish
symbol doesn't meaningfully change the scenario.

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.

------
xixi77
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?

~~~
DannyBee
"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, ....

~~~
MichaelGG
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?

~~~
pyre
> 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.

~~~
DannyBee
Exactly.

~~~
MichaelGG
Thank you both for the explanation.

------
InclinedPlane
Uber has nowhere to hide here. Let's say you're ordinary schlubs who are
engaging in illegal activity at work, what's the dumbest possible thing you
could do? Leave evidence, of course, or worse, create evidence. Such as
talking about it over email. That would be super, super dumb.

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.

------
stepitup
What's really strange is that I bet a good percente of the people reading this
comment will know exactly what I mean when I refer to a: "Startup that employs
mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks
them up and attempts to hurt them."

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.)_

~~~
askafriend
Can't wait until Nextdoor replaces Yelp. It's only a matter of time.

~~~
aarpmcgee
haha not likely, i know people that work there.

~~~
askafriend
Why do you say it's not likely?

------
rajathagasthya
Uber is having one hell of a year. Anyone have an idea whether it has
significantly affected their recruitment of new people?

~~~
dkarapetyan
Pretty sure they have a hiring freeze. Who would they be recruiting at this
point?

~~~
owly
Lawyers.

------
hackuser
> If a ride request was deemed illegitimate, Uber's app showed bogus
> information and the requester would not be picked up, the employees told
> Reuters.

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.

------
terribleplan
Ok, what's the over under on the people who coded this getting used as
scapegoats? I'm at about 40/60 against.

Morality and legality in software is a massive frontier we hardly pause to
think about.

~~~
npizzolato
A real criminal investigation probably isn't going to be satisfied with the
lowly coder. If this ends up going all the way, I would expect people high up
to be punished.

~~~
memmcgee
In an ideal world that would be the case. But in reality, unless you hurt the
elites like Enron did, you'll probably get off just fine.

------
beedogs
It's fun watching the world's worst unicorn startup being turned into dog
food.

------
ausjke
Austin where I live rejected Uber and it seems that's a right move.

~~~
intopieces
Can you comment on the experience with the alternatives? This rejection
happened right after I left, so I have been curious. Austin has a pretty bad
DUI problem.

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?

~~~
ausjke
Don't really use it often enough, but it seems daily life is not impacted that
much, there are few alternatives, smaller but probably enough for local needs.

------
bogositosius
Evading local regulators is a federal matter?

~~~
sidlls
When it's done using communication and information transfer across state
borders there is at least a case to be made for that.

~~~
bogositosius
Hmm. But local taxi regulations are not federal law, so what's the underlying
federal crime being committed?

~~~
ModernMech
If money is moving from one state to another, then I would assume it's
considered Interstate commerce, which is federal jurisdiction.

~~~
bogositosius
Sure, but what federal law was broken? I wasn't aware that the federal
government enforces local city regulations just because money is moving
between states.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
I mean, if the feds really wanted to get in to it, Uber is probably guilty of
money laundering.

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.

------
raspasov
How is "software used to evade authorities"

different from

.. using a "radar used to detect highway patrol"?

~~~
gvb
It isn't. Illegal is illegal no matter the scale[1].

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.

~~~
raspasov
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am not an expert in all the law
complexities in this area but I feel like that can be a great challenge for a
lawyer that's up to the task to try and defend Uber.

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).

------
wonderwonder
Uber needs new leadership yesterday.

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.

------
rdxm
lol.... i believe the proper phrase here is "chickens coming home to roost"

------
grandalf
Edit: Please don't down-vote this. Up-vote it and argue articulately against
it!

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.

~~~
gotothedoctor
I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some
don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of
it is true. So what?

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

~~~
grandalf
> for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true

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.

~~~
gotothedoctor
It seems we disagree on too many facts.

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.

~~~
grandalf
> so be it.

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.

~~~
gotothedoctor
I'm not offended; its just the opposite of persuasive. And "jumping on the
bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender: if that's how you understood my
reply, we're unlikely to understand each other & its not worth the effort to
be clear.

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.

~~~
grandalf
> "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender

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.

------
dkarapetyan
So Uber is now Theranos?

~~~
walrus01
with slightly fewer turtlenecks

~~~
rdxm
golf clap....

------
S3curityPlu5
Uber needs to go down enough is enough already. how many times can you get
away with criminal acts, most likely they will just have to pay a fine again
though. It seems like corporations can get away with anything these days, and
if they get caught they just pay a fine and go on operating.

------
mirimir
If DPR had played a tighter game, maybe they could have managed a fully
subversive ride service. But no matter how well executed, drivers would still
be putting their vehicles on the line. Maybe look like hitchhiking?

------
snappyTertle
Sure, Uber may have broken the law (or evaded it); however, just because a law
exists, doesn't make it correct. We should also question if the law should be
there in the first place.

~~~
ithinkinstereo
I see, and understand, the point you're making. But we do have established
channels and processes for amending the law. If you decide not to go through
these formal means, and favor an approach that directly violates said laws,
you'll have to suffer the consequences.

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.

------
jeffdavis
Doesn't seem very likely to be a serious problem for Uber. Basically bad PR.

If I were them, I would be more worried that they can't kill competitors well
enough to ever be highly profitable.

~~~
nebabyte
This would be one of the eggs they're putting in the basket of "we'll just
corner self-driving cars"

------
bbcbasic
Another one! Can't wait to watch the Uber movie.

------
Jabanga
The laws Uber is accused of facilitating the violation of are themselves
tyrannical abridgements of personal liberty. The entire exercise, from the
local laws to punish Uber drivers, to the DOJ's prosecution of Uber for
helping its drivers evade economic persecution, are a disgusting exercise in
majority supported tyranny.

~~~
mdpopescu
Don't say that here :) Americans are big on obeying the law, no matter what.

------
SCAQTony
Why is the Uber board allowing their CEO to continue to make sketchy ethical
decisions? You would think they would ask Travis Kalanick to fall on his sword
so the company can reboot and perhaps rebrand it's image so it would seem less
"sinister" towards regulation, it's drivers and the law.

~~~
matt4077
Uber is structured in such a way that Kalanick still has majority control. The
board works for him, essentially.

------
ransom1538
Meanwhile, %36 of US homicides are never resolved.

~~~
meepmorp
What's your point? That no other criminal investigations should done till
we've cleared those?

------
nafizh
This might be a blow back for Kalanick resigning from Trump's advisory
council?

~~~
aioprisan
Case brought by an Obama era US AG.

------
LordHumungous
Theranuber

------
kafkaesq
Finally.

------
maverick_iceman
Intuitively, it seems that Uber committed fraud; but is there a specific law
that they violated? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious to
know.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
The most likely seems to be obstruction of justice or conspiracy to violate
whatever laws the drivers were violating by operating in jurisdictions where
they weren't allowed to operate.

------
amelius
It seems like their company motto is: be evil.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's like that good old joke - Google decided their motto is "don't be evil",
Uber saw that and realized they just left them a market niche.

------
laughingman2
Lots of Anarcho-Kapitalists drunk on Ayn Rand Kool Aid.

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.

~~~
Jabanga
The laws in question are tyrannical infringements of personal liberty. You
don't have a right to prohibit people from trading a service for money.

~~~
AlexandrB
So based on your comment the following are "tyrannical infringements of
personal liberty":

* 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.

~~~
Jabanga
Are children capable of providing informed consent for the purposes of the
law? That's questionable, so it's questionable if all child labour
prohibitions infringe upon individual liberty.

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.

------
thr0waway1239
Mark Zuckerberg must be feeling ecstatic. You don't need to outrun the
negative PR bear, you only need to outrun your idiot fratbro friend.

------
topitguys
What?? Looks like the sharing economy is really taking a lot of hit. I read
somewhere that there is a conspiracy to defame companies like Uber and Airbnb.
Both doing so well and helping people big time in such overly priced market..

~~~
memmcgee
Well you sound like a legitimate real person. There's no conspiracy here, Uber
is a shit company and their past actions are coming back to bite them in the
ass.

------
Kinnard
>the Greyball technique was also used against suspected local officials who
could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars or otherwise prevent
Uber from operating, the employees said

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"

~~~
__jal
> 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??

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?

~~~
dllthomas
I heard of cases where police officers would request rides in places where it
was _legal_ to pick someone up but there was an increased chance of the driver
making a mistake and doing something they can ticket.

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...)

------
iloveluce
Everyone really is piling up against Uber. I really hope this isn't some sort
of Justice Department revenge against Travis for having left the Trump
advisory council [0]

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-
travi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-
kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html)

~~~
was_boring
I would say it's more likely if he had stayed the politics could have stopped
it. Now that he quit, he doesn't have the boss's blessing so they are free to
pursue.

This is exactly what K street is paid to stop.

~~~
akozak
No, despite most preconceptions about corporations and gov'ts you don't lobby
your way out of criminal charges. The best defense to avoid this is _don 't do
stupid things or break the law_.

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.

