
Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers - indexerror
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/24/uber-hell-lawsuit/
======
sillysaurus3
So, no one was really able to answer my question last thread. In fact, I
mostly got snarky condescending replies. I've stopped caring about such things
though, so hopefully good-faith questions are still welcome:

What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? What is wrong with using a
competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them? Not only
did it not harm Lyft drivers, but it actually aided them: Several of them were
offered hundreds of dollars by Uber to switch companies. Most drivers are
trying to make end's meet, and from speaking directly with drivers, this was
seen as a universally positive thing. "I was like, yes! Where do I sign? $400
bucks is amazing. Too bad my car was too old for Uber."

Though I guess if Mr. Gonzales wins his lawsuit, it will give the answer to
these questions and more.

~~~
Mz
My opinion: This is not about the drivers. They were engaging in activity
intended to be actively hostile to a competitor. That is why this is wrong.

It is one thing to build a competitive business. It is another to try to
actively undermine the competition, and not because your service is simply
better.

I get rather tired of a world in which "Well, technically, it didn't break any
existing rules, so it should be okay, right?" gets used to justify all kinds
of ugly stuff. We live in a world that our existing laws were not designed to
account for because it hadn't been invented yet, nor even imagined. It is
almost like saying "Well, if we invented magic and used magic to murder
people, hey, we should be allowed to get away with murder because our current
laws don't have clauses that address the use of magic, amirite??!!"

Uh, no. You are not right. And I hope we will develop laws and rules that
spell out that you are not right.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me.

My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working
for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft
drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar
to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we
call out-of-the-box thinking?

It seems like there's a fine line between being clever and being morally
bankrupt. Clever hack: Using a language feature in a way it wasn't intended.
Morally bankrupt: Using a competitor's API in a way it wasn't intended.

So it was really hard to work through these concerns, or even begin to address
them without talking publicly about it. But bringing it up publicly seems to
entail people talking down to you (see the replies to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189381](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189381)
in this thread). Just an interesting situation.

~~~
cookiecaper
I have to wonder how much business/competition experience some of these guys
replying to you have.

Tech people live in a bubble. Because our skills are in high demand and
there's a pretty strong natural aptitude barrier limiting the number of new
competitors, our experiences competing in the tech bubble can be very
misleading.

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. If you are lazy about competing, or trying
to "go easy" on someone, you are going to get eaten. This is a hard-coded
biological response to scarcity, and it's not going to go away, so we best get
used to it and stop being everyone else's doormat.

Successful companies are usually fairly ruthless; they're just good at keeping
it quiet. Not only does what I know about Uber's program not surprise me (and
I haven't read in-depth on it yet, so this is my disclaimer if there's
something more repugnant than signing in to Lyft buried under the covers), but
it's downright conventional.

Refusal to compete is suicide. Naively believing that the world will reward
you if you play nice-nice and opt out of decisive, competitive action is the
best way to find yourself/your company on a platter at someone else's table.

This ethos from some of the other commenters that you shouldn't do something
because it might make your competitors unhappy is absurd. Show a little
sporting spirit. If a competitor is making intelligence available, you
absolutely should take advantage of it.

I've found the guiding star to be "Is this really immoral, or have we just
been socialized to believe it's impolite or in bad taste?" One should realize
that a lot of this socialization is provided by people who simply don't want
you to become a strong competitor, and have indoctrinated this imaginary,
soft, cushiony world into everyone's brains so that it's easier for them to
come in and take what they want, and their constant empty blathering draws
attention away from their dirty deeds. There's no need to allow ourselves to
be victimized like that.

Specifically, it's ridiculous to claim that using an API in a way that isn't
intended is "morally bankrupt". That's like saying it's morally bankrupt for
Walmart employees to go to Target looking for places where they can get an
advantage. Far from morally bankrupt, that's a fundamental component of
capitalism; how are you supposed to compete if you can't see what your
competitor is doing?

Patronizing competing services in a non-disruptive way is normal. Some may be
familiar with "secret shoppers", people that companies pay to go to their
stores on a random day and report back on the experience. These secret
shoppers are _also_ deployed to competing stores. How and/or why is this any
different?

Private and undocumented APIs have been exploited by developers for decades.
My understanding is that Uber was not even doing that, but rather just
accessing the normal API in a non-disruptive way to learn some useful
information about their competition.

~~~
sillysaurus3
_how are you supposed to compete if you can 't see what your competitor is
doing?_

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? I had your mindset going into this, but Uber
is getting sued for exactly that, and public opinion is (apparently) strongly
against the idea that you should use your competitor's API's at all. So how do
you look objectively at this and conclude "Well, even though a popular company
is now being sued for this, and all of my friends would think less of me for
doing this, I should go ahead and do it anyway"?

I'm genuinely curious since you hit on exactly what I've been struggling to
figure out.

I tried to say "It's hard to believe Lyft isn't doing exactly the same thing"
at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14104646](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14104646)
and the reply was "No, it's actually really easy to believe that Lyft isn't
tricking Uber's computer systems into giving Lyft real-time info on Uber's
drivers and fare prices. Please stop trying to make excuses for Uber's shitty
behavior." And that's probably a fair reply. So how do you figure out whether
you're doing something shitty, or just "breaking rules in a sporting way?" Is
it just a coin toss? Is there an objective way to navigate these questions? It
feels important to figure out answers to this kind of thing.

~~~
vinceguidry
This sounds ultimately like a political question and not an ethical one.
Meaning, public opinion needs to spar with private interests on numerous
related matters in order to arrive at a conclusion, because no one person is
going to be able to figure it out themselves. Until then the area is a
frontier where you must tread carefully and keep your wits about you.

What makes the US a good place for business is its very willingness to forgive
certain types of transgressions, which would get you crucified in Europe. We
instinctively understand that this stuff is _hard_ and until legal lines are
drawn and sometimes even in that case, we're not going to hang your ass out to
dry.

I think the reason for this is that a lot of innovations can come out of this
process. If we held ethical transgressor's feet to the fire without fail then
we'd never find really interesting products and services that never would have
existed otherwise.

If you operate outside of safe, established, legal and ethical grounds, then
you're throwing your fate to the court of public opinion, and that feels right
to me.

~~~
sillysaurus3
I wish I could agree, but I can't. The court of public opinion is fickle and
monstrous. You don't have to go far to see examples:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/instant_regret/comments/67g6lj/moun...](https://www.reddit.com/r/instant_regret/comments/67g6lj/mounting_a_wild_horse/dgq3voj/)

Many of those people probably would've preferred the horse kill that guy
instead of just bump him a little. Half of them probably feel that he deserved
it, and they were happy to see him get hit.

It's easy to feel like the court of programmer opinion is much more evolved
and sophisticated, but as far as I can tell, we're cut from the same cloth.

I was hoping there were a way to navigate ethical issues from a personal
standpoint. It would be helpful to have a template: "I'm going to do S, and I
know it's right because X." "I'm going to do T, even though it might be wrong,
because Y." "I'm going to do V, even though it's wrong, because Z."

~~~
cookiecaper
The moral dilemmas of life are incontrovertible. Everyone must make cost-
benefit decisions that don't have an absolute or clear answer; situations in
which any of the options hold both moral virtues and moral hazards.

These decisions become ever-higher-stakes as responsibilities accrue. Is your
loyalty to your employees and investors, whom you can pay more if you charge
more, or your customers, who are looking to keep more of their "surplus" and
may very well already have that money allocated to other needs? You can cast
such dilemmas about most choices.

Anyway, religion is the framework that has been formulated to satisfy your
very natural yearning for a moral standard or compass.

But even in religion, there is no hard deterministic path. Much like law,
there are some baselines, but beyond that, the decision falls back into the
individual's lap. That is why regular self-examination through prayer and
introspection are core components of religion.

Good luck to you.

------
WhitneyLand
There is something weird about the tactics of Uber execs. I don't think it's
all an ethics failure.

A lot of the lying and cheating they do seems like an objectively poor
risk/reward proposition and I think many companies would not even get to the
ethics question because they would stop when realizing the ideas are stupid
when you add up the negatives.

Stealing Google's autonomous auto IP could be a crime that actually moves the
needle for the company (if it turns out they are guilty), so I guess they at
least had significant upside with that one.

~~~
Spooky23
It's not weird at all. It looks pretty obviously like a pump and dump scheme.
This behavior is fraud, and i bet the juiciest stuff is yet to come.

I'm sure the criminal complaint coming from some US Attorney will reveal that
somebody was cashing out in private markets. This is no different than a
boiler room.

~~~
Applejinx
I don't agree with that. I think it's related to the fundamental nature of
speculative capitalism. This is Uber 'virtue signaling'.

With regard to stock market valuation, what humans might consider values is
reversed. Stock market speculators think (or are designed to think, in the
case of software agents) like sharks, not community members or citizens or
team members. The equation is 'feed or die' and value is intentionally the
only factor.

The common denominator of all these Uber behaviors is this: aggressive or even
psychotic competitiveness, beyond any conceivable rule or law. w.r.t their
stock valuation this is virtue signaling. For this behavior not to benefit
them, they have to not only LOSE the lawsuit in question but also have it
damage them more than they gained in 'appearance of psychotic
competitiveness'.

That's possible, but it's really important to understand the virtue signalling
aspect. If the behavior persuades a bunch of amoral stock speculators that
Uber is their kind of company it can directly translate into capital valuation
that can in turn be spent on lawyers for trying to win the legal cases.

And since the value proposition here is establishing a giant multinational
corporation that ignores any and all laws, documenting additional laws or
rules broken only underscores the value proposition.

Virtue signalling… in Hell. (literally!)

~~~
csomar
I don't think you understand the OP. Let's say I'm an investor with specific
moral values. I'd accept that Uber does "anything" (from minors privacy
intrusions to real criminal activity) to increase its market cap.

What the OP suggests is that the risk/reward ratio for such activities is
_high_. The whole point of doing these activities is that they have a _great_
reward with a small risk of being caught. If the risk of getting caught is
high, and the reward is low then what's the point of doing such activities.

------
dinedal
How does anyone, when asked to build such a program, not raise an objection,
or say something?

The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is
true.

~~~
vkou
I just send the rockets up, where they come down is not my department.

Why do people build weapons? Why do people pay taxes, that are used to fund
immoral actions? Why do people provide services to immoral actors? Typically,
the answer is money.

~~~
saghm
> Why do people pay taxes, that are used to fund immoral actions? ...
> Typically, the answer is money.

That seems like a stretch; people pay their taxes because they don't want to
go to prison, not because of money. If anything, money would be an incentive
_not_ to pay your taxes, so it seems obvious that there's something stronger
than money at play there.

~~~
pikzen
Or, in not-libertarian-land, people pay taxes because they enjoy having access
to public services such as police, fire departments, working roads, water,
etc.

~~~
metaphorm
the two positions aren't even a little contradictory. people pay taxes BOTH
because they want to comply with the law (avoid prosecution) and because they
value public services (some of them anyway).

similarly, there is nuance in each position. self-preservation motivates
avoidance of prosecution, but it doesn't prevent individuals and companies
from seeking the most effective legal means to avoid taxes, which sometimes is
in a grey area w.r.t law and ethics. as well we should consider that while
some public services are considered good and desirable, many of them aren't,
and which is good and which is not is a judgment that varies heavily between
individuals.

this isn't libertarian-land "taxes are theft" stuff. this is the basic social
contract that everyone, libertarians and their opponents, all abide by.

------
fencepost
I'm not sure that a Lyft driver suing has as much bad potential for Uber as a
class action of former Uber drivers. Given the reported churn there's likely a
significant pool of those drivers, and since Uber apparently considers both
Lyft and McDonald's as competitors, it seems likely that many of them are not
feeling wealthy.

IIRC the previous coverage noted that Uber was providing incentives to drivers
who were using both systems, including both bonuses and steering passengers to
the both-systems drivers to incentivize them to drop Lyft and only drive for
Uber. The corollary of that is that there are a bunch of Uber-only drivers and
former drivers who had their incomes hurt by Uber's redirection of profitable
fares to 2-system drivers. THAT may be actionable, and a class action of
former drivers seems like it wouldn't be that hard to put together.

~~~
wbl
How is it actionable? Uber is under no obligation to give any driver rides.
Favoring ones with a better BATNA is just good business.

~~~
fencepost
This would likely depend on the terms of the contract with the drivers and on
what statements if any were made to drivers about how rides were allocated,
prioritized, etc.

If the drivers had been led to believe that ride allocation was "fair" (based
on distance, predicted arrival time, etc.) or under their control (based on
rides being presented to multiple drivers and assigned to the first responder)
then finding that it was actually weighted in favor of people driving for Lyft
might be a problem for them.

This also goes back to the principle of "anyone can sue for anything" as long
as it's not frivolous, and this doesn't seem like it'd be considered such. A
suit might not be successful, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least
considered.

------
Dangeranger
Is there a separate lawsuit from Lyft Inc., or is the sole lawsuit originating
as a class action filed on the behalf of the driver(s)?

It would seem to me that the Lyft company has the strongest case here against
Uber based on a violation of the terms of service for the private API that
Uber abused.

If Lyft were successful in their lawsuit, that would lend confidence to a
follow-on suit by drivers.

------
misiti3780
Uber lost me as a customer if there are other options. I was in Houston this
past weekend and everyone is using Uber, no one using Lyft, etc.

I ended up downloading their app and using it all weekend, and uninstalled it
as soon as I got to the airport. I wonder how many other cities are basically
exclusively Uber currently ?

~~~
josu
And countries. There are currently no real alternatives in Mexico.

~~~
Applejinx
And of course that's the strategy, right there.

------
jansho
One after the other. To put a conspiracy/playful hat on - seriously this is
not my serious opinion - could it be that Uber is getting set up? Not
necessarily framed but "oops, this just got leaked" set of dominoes.
Apparently quite a few people are mad at Uber, like Apple, and Google, and the
taxi drivers ...

~~~
alexbeloi
I would guess it's a combination of intentional leaks and reporters smelling
blood in the water. Maybe also the upper management did something to lose the
favor of people that would normally protect them from these kind of events
(big investors). Or at least put a stop to them.

Something to note is that half (3/6) of Uber's board members are internal
(Uber employees). So perhaps Kalanick is under no pressure of being ousted
(maybe he has tie-breaking/veto privilege as the chairman) by the board, and
so people that _do_ want him removed are resorting to leaking bad press, in
the hope that external pressure will force a change.

~~~
nebabyte
> and reporters smelling blood in the water

This. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by people
jumping on the 'gleeful schadenfreude and' bandwagon

Besides, you know the drill, if it's "in right now" it drives clicks.

------
alistproducer2
Uber lost me as a customer a couple months ago. Now we just need some
competition for lyft so they don't become the only game in town.

------
freewizard
From the code name of these projects from Uber: Heaven(God View) / Hell, you
can pretty much tell this company thinks it's playing god.

This is terrifying and must be stopped!

~~~
thesmallestcat
Makes you think you should always choose the driest names possible, even for
internal projects. That said, I agree, who would name a tool like this
"Hell"??

~~~
workergnome
Hell is "other people".

\-- Jean-Paul Sartre

------
artursapek
Uber can't seem to stay out of the news.

~~~
beedogs
Because they're a horrible company run by criminals.

------
moomin
Is it just me, or would it save Uber a lot of time if they just got the
lawyers to go over discovery in one pass for every project they run?

It might be erm... tantamount to admitting most of your activity is subject to
legal challenge but the cost savings would be astronomical.

------
dudidi
Can someone here tells me is Uber even trying to fix all the problems? Do they
consider any of their controversial strategies morally wrong? Or they're just
trying to make everything looks fine?

------
sidcool
Uber might become the Napster of our times. Although I wish it doesn't happen.

------
p0nce
Uber keeps being Uber, a shady investment and value-destroying business.

~~~
edlebert
I can't stomach using them anymore.

------
david-cako
Uber can't seem to catch a break these days, can they.

Can anyone explain how this is different from Google and Facebook following
you around with informatics everywhere you go on the internet? The favicon
trick is a pretty good example.

~~~
zeven7
What's the favicon trick?

~~~
cryowaffle
[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16828763/use-favicon-
to-t...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16828763/use-favicon-to-track-
user-visit-to-a-website)

~~~
tyingq
The Etag trick was interesting, but a little less stealthy:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag#Tracking_using_ETa...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag#Tracking_using_ETags)

------
nodesocket
It is no coincidence that Techcrunch loves writing negative articles about
Uber almost weekly now.... It draws in page views which equals ad revenue from
the constantly outraged.

~~~
dave5104
Maybe Uber should stop doing negative things then.

~~~
nodesocket
You think the same about United and now American? Perhaps it just that the
outraged minority now have a louder voice. There is a financial benefit for
them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers.

~~~
matt4077
Not op, but:

> You think the same about United...

Yes.

> ...and now American?

Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably.

> Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice.

I don't understand the mechanism you're proposing? You're insinuating that
this "minority" is today no larger than it was for...similar scandals in the
past, I guess? Then why would readership for news about said scandals rise?
How does loudness factor into this? Does Uber go to 11?

Anyway, you're wrong on the simplest of facts. It's not a minority: "Pollsters
found generally negative attitudes toward United, with 47 percent viewing it
unfavorably. Twenty-three percent see the airline favorably."
([http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-pol...](http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-poll-
voters-prefer-united-airlines-to-trump))

> There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles,
> outrage/scandal draws in viewers.

And to think that for centuries, we trusted journalists without ever noticing
that they were paid (paid!) to write what they write. It's basically
corruption! And now that I think of it, I can no longer trust the baker! That
corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread!

~~~
metaphorm
> I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking
> money to make bread!

you jest now, but in past eras there was SIGNIFICANT political conflict about
the role millers and bakers played in distribution of grain resources.

