Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I agree. It's genius in a Lex Luthor kind of way. If I understood the full scope of the application, I like to think i'd decline to work on that. It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement.

There's a big difference between keeping secrets for market advantage and to evade the law. In the first case, I want to tell people because i'm building cool stuff, but i can't, at least not until the product is ready. In the latter case, i'd be at least embarrassed, if not ashamed of the tools.

But I agree, it's slick. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback when it's not my career at stake. With millions or billions of dollars on the line, my ethics might erode much faster than i want to admit. In that case, I'd hope evil jfoutz (or ethically devoid jfoutz) would build such a sophisticated tool.




>If I understood the full scope of the application, I like to think i'd decline to work on that. It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement.

It reminds me of the VW emissions cheating case:

"Hey, have it detect whether the test cycle is running and emit a signal if true."

'Um... why would the system need to know that?'

"Uh, because we don't want the car to freak out when the wheels are turning but it's not moving."

'Oh ... seems legit.'

"And you -- have it minimize NO2 when it gets this signal. But don't talk to him."

In the Uber case, employees might have been told, "oh we want to offer a special discount to law enforcement" ... though even that seems seedy.

But (per my original comment) I don't see how they can keep the circle small. What do they tell support employees to say when someone reports not being able to get a ride despite all the fake cars around?


The system has extremely obvious use cases in abuse mitigation - it's basically HN shadow banning for car service. Only a few needed to know about the spot-the-officials aspect, and the rest is legitimate. And support don't need to know anything - if someone is reporting fake cars, they're an undesirable customer anyway so from Uber's standpoint, it's fine if support get confused and do a bad job.


From my read of the article, abuse mitigation seems to have been an early motivation for some components of this feature - in markets where, for example, competitors would threaten Uber drivers with damage against person or vehicle. And then someone got the bright idea of who else they could shadowban...


A Philadelphia agency was caught teaming up with taxi companies to fight Uber http://www.vox.com/2016/1/30/10873372/uber-lyft-taxi-philade...


caught is a bit hyperbolic. Government agencies have every right to work with industry partners to promote, understand, and enforce regulation. This happens all day everyday in industries around the world. Uber isn't somehow exempt from that.


It may be that asking questions like that is simply not encouraged at Uber.


Uber's support is pretty worthless - every interaction is with a different person, and none of them read the conversation history. I'd expect the person would get a runaround and just wind up going in circles.


Agreed, and also the article states that multiple current and former employees reported this information.


But NYTimes might be mistaken in its reporing?


I doubt it. Reputable news sources require at least two independent sources before they'll print a story. If NYT didn't have multiple current or former employees telling them about this then you wouldn't be reading this story.


[flagged]


It's concerning to see this narrative already working, considering a Carlos Slim "billion dollar investment" in the NYT is, itself, a lie. The good news for you is that a transaction that large would be public record, so I look forward to being proven wrong with a citation. (I suggest you look up the market capitalization of The New York Times Company.)


On the order of 1bn, but my memory of exact figures from a decade ago needed refreshing. In fact only $350 million of corrupt foreign monopolist cash is enough to buy the editorial position of America's premier source of fake news.

Good luck defending the NY Times on that basis.


He increased his investment by $100ish million in 2015, which more than doubled his stake. This is easily found via Google, and is on the order of an order of magnitude below a billion dollars. You can't just make things up while decrying fake news. The trend line on these goalposts moving will eventually lead to an investment I can afford.

This is even beyond my position on the paper. You're just typing complete falsehoods and expecting to get away with it now, which is sad.


I would imagine there are people who don't view it as a breach of ethics. And those types are probably more inclined to be working at Uber on the first place.

I mean if you really believe the various transportations administrations are corrupt and that the way to solve it is to temporarily disregard the law, then Uber is probably the place to be


I seem to be the minority here, but I don't see how any entity (including Uber) has an obligation to make it easy for the law to ticket them.

Anyone who uses e.g. the Waze app to evade speedtraps is similarly guilty of "systematically avoiding the law."

Lastly, let me just disclaim that I think Uber is run by assholes and so is the police.


Obstruction of justice is a crime. So are lying to an FBI agent, destroying evidence, resisting arrest, evading arrest, falsifying business records, destruction of documents with intent to impede an investigation, and of course perjury.

I don't know that any of these apply here, but yes, actively avoiding accountability is often a crime on its own. And correctly so, I'd say. Creating fake accounting records as a hobby would be odd but not immoral. But keeping two sets of books in a real business has no purpose beyond enabling illegal activity.


Oh, and if you're wondering about the moral case, I think it's pretty clear. When we the people set out to do something together, deciding to evade our joint decisions and mechanisms for self-regulation is an antisocial, antidemocratic act.


When big money monopolists corrupt our local governments to obtain taxi monopolies at the expense of working families, the environment, and vulnerable racial minorities that can't hail taxis but can get an Uber, then it's the system that's antisocial and antidemocratic.

Uber is a social reform movement organized as a profit-seeking business. Of course the forces of corruption and reaction are going to try to stop it under cover of law.


So you claim.

But if they're a social reform movement, they'd very well disguised. They threaten journalists, exploit workers, engage in a variety of skulduggery, and create such a toxic working environment that they need a former Attorney General to investigate.

I think the more likely case is that they are what they appear to be: greedy, amoral people disguising an attempt to gain a monopoly using the guise of social reform.


The government hasn't represented "we, the people" since forever, so all your arguments are void. It cannot be morally unlawful to resist a government that doesn't represent you.


You are welcome to your own opinions, but I disagree. I imagine most Americans would.

Regardless, if you have decided that the government doesn't represent the people, it makes your task harder. Unless you're just saying that you can do what you want (which doesn't strike me as much of a moral position) then you have to work to divine what the collective will of your fellow citizens is and honor that.


Would you say that using an app to avoid speed traps is obstruction of justice? What about radar detectors?


Certainly it depends on which one of many jurisdictions Uber operates in.

For a start, in the U.K. it's illegal to use radar detectors [Edit: this first is apparently false; they publically stated that they were going to, but never changed the law. Other countries apparently do ban them, according to wikipedia.], and people have been given criminal convictions for "Flashing their lights" in order to warn incoming motorists of a speed trap.


Is it illegal to use either radar detectors or gps camera locators in England? What law is it?

I'd be interested in a link to the "flashing lights" case too.


Apologies - apparently I'm mistaken with the first - apparently several years ago there were public discussions about it and they claimed they were going to, but never followed through. Probably some more secondary sources confirmed it for me that I never double checked. (Also, wikipedia claims that although the UK doesn't ban, plenty of other countries do - and in the US it seems only Virginia explicitly bans them)

RE: Headlight flashing, I can only find sources from a few years ago - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12823922 was the one I remember hearing about, but several other instances seem to have taken place; i.e. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9324722...


I'm not a lawyer, so I'd suggest you either ask one or form your own opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice


True, but there's a big difference between turning away anyone who looks like a cop (as biker bars might do, and is on firm legal ground), versus lying specifically to those people you believe to be cops.


So, saying the bar's closed would be ethically unacceptable but just saying you're not allowed in isn't? I'm afraid I don't agree with this being a clear ethical distinction.


> I don't see how any entity (including Uber) has an obligation to make it easy for the law to ticket them.

Corporate citizens have an obligation to obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. If they find the laws unacceptable, they should lobby to have them changed.


You'll find that the same argument gets thrown entirely out the window conveniently depending on a person's specific beliefs on any given issue. It's barely even built on sand as a premise.

See: racism and discrimination broadly, segregation, refugees, illegal immigration, unions / union strikes, marijuana, political corruption, cartels, government protected monopolies and so on. There are a vast number of topics that cause people at businesses to be willing to disregard the laws of a given jurisdiction at various points in time (regardless of whether one views the position as being on the moral side or not). It'd be hard to claim that it never makes sense to disobey the law for a business, given just the last century of history in just the developed world, with the plentiful display of wildly irrational or immoral laws that have existed.


Herein lies the source of the disagreement.

We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. These laws once had a good reason, but are now still on the books only because incumbents have regulators in their pockets.

As for lobbying to have the laws changed, if you expect startups to be able to lobby in every jurisdiction to get the law changed against incumbents when the regulators often come from the industry the startup is disrupting, then I got a bridge to sell you.


> We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations.

The thing is, we're not. What we've got is a cab company that can offer better and cheaper service than everyone else because it's breaking the law, and it's good at throwing VC money at lawyers to avoid the consequences. What we've got is further damage to the respect for the rule of law and thus to the fabric of civilization, as people see how Uber gets away with illegal activities. Hell, there are many people who are inspired by their antisocial behaviour, and see Uber as an example to follow.


Consider a hypothetical business in a historical era that provides great service by employing colored people to serve white customers. Imagine said business becomes successful, and even pushes some jurisdictions to change their laws against this practice.

I'd argue that this business is great - it's helping consumers and fixing the world.

One might argue that we are not better off because of this:

The thing is, we're not. What we've got is a business that can offer better and cheaper service than everyone else because it's breaking the law, and it's good at throwing money at lawyers to avoid the consequences. What we've got is further damage to the respect for the rule of law and thus to the fabric of civilization, as people see how this company gets away with illegal activities. Hell, there are many people who are inspired by their antisocial behaviour, and see Uber as an example to follow.

Your argument seems to apply equally well to this case - after all, your argument is not dependent on the law being just or unjust. It completely ignores that point.

Are you willing to follow your argument where it leads? Or do you recognize the flaw in it?


It's about the defaults. I believe laws should be obeyed by default, and only opposed in special circumstances. The burden of proving that the circumstances warrant disobedience should be on the disobedient party. And most importantly, breaking the law should be expensive, so that it never becomes a viable business strategy.

I'd even cut Uber some slack if they weren't so smug about what they're doing. This is just as much about breaking arbitrary laws as it is about how they keep showing that they don't give a shit about society.

> your argument is not dependent on the law being just or unjust. It completely ignores that point.

It does, because in real world, regulations are not uniformly distributed throughout the possibility space. In any working society you can - and should - assume that most laws are there for a reason, and that this reason is just. When that assumption doesn't hold, your country pretty much disintegrates. Hence, going against the law is a special case.

The way I see it, none of Uber's "innovations" actually required illegal actions. They simply don't care, because this way is faster and brings in more money.

As a proof of that I want to point out that many places in Europe managed to implement all those Uber "innovations" some time ago, and it didn't require breaking laws in the way Uber does. Sure, old cab companies were pissed, but things got settled in courts and regulations were updated - just like it should happen in any civilized society.

Ultimately, if Americans want to run their society this way, it's none of my business. I would be happy though, if they stopped exporting their "innovative" methods to countries with working regulatory frameworks.


I think Uber has proven that their disobedience is beneficial. In the US and India they have made the transit sector vastly better than it was before. Even ignoring the benefits of the app over hailing a cab, the drastic reduction in racial discrimination is an amazing improvement.

Note that India also had apps/SMS driven taxi hails - autowale.in started in Pune (my city). But Uber fixed transport and the political situation, whereas autowale.in is just a footnote in history.

In any working society you can - and should - assume that most laws are there for a reason, and that this reason is just. When that assumption doesn't hold, your country pretty much disintegrates. Hence, going against the law is a special case.

Then by your standard, the US and India are not working societies.

Then again, by your standard, it's pretty clear that not all of Europe is working. For example, witness how often French unions and others engage in violent and illegal actions (both assaulting Uber drivers/passengers and others) on a regular basis.

In any case, you seem to be backing away from your original claim and accepting that some laws are unjust and breaking them is ok. Do you argue that American or Indian taxi protectionism laws are just?


The fix would have been to create better mass transit.


You are arbitrarily assigning Uber's disruption a positive social outcome, which appears to be the lynchpin of your argument. Your argument could be applied to many outcomes that would appear on the surface to be negative. A few (admittedly exaggerated) examples:

"ArmzDealR is providing a great service by eliminating government bureaucracy and providing access to arms that citizens should have. It's good that they help people avoid those onerous registration requirements."

"TraffiKR makes it easy to find cheap labor. There's no paperwork and the workers never complain!"

Are you willing to follow your argument where it leads? Should businesses be allowed to push against any rule at all? Are all laws 'unjust' or are there some laws that are in place to protect public good?


I'm simply pointing out that Temporal's argument that breaking the law is always wrong is simply incorrect.

I'm not saying all laws should be broken. I'm saying one must decide whether or not the law is just, and support those who break unjust laws. I see no one even attempting to make the argument that taxi protectionism laws are just. Do you have an argument that they are?


I haven't researched the rationales behind taxi protectionism laws, so I can only offer conjecture. Two two reasons I can imagine we have such laws are traffic congestion control and accident liability.

On the surface congestion control seems far easier to implement (especially in a pre-mobile phone context) via restriction of medallions. I don't have arguments one way or the other as to the necessity of congestion control because I've only rarely experienced large cities (NYC, Chicago, London). I believe they are popular for various reasons, but I am not familiar with the arguments for or against.

Determination of liability seems like another obvious reason for a medallion monopoly. Presumably taxis are a higher risk pool for insurance claims, due to the presence of multiple parties. It's unclear to me where the liability falls if an Uber driver is in an accident that mortally wounds a passenger; will their standard insurance (that presumes a certain risk profile) cover the claim? I'm simply not familiar enough to definitely comment, unfortunately.

The latter argument holds more weight with me, but I'm sympathetic to arguments against it.


You do see the problem with encouraging the erosion of mutual social trust? If "following the law" collapses as a percieved social expectation it would impoverish everyone.

That being said, it is clear that abusive and overwraught law and regulation invites this impovrishment.


Breaking the law always erodes the fabric of society. Normalizing it is worse.

Certainly, there can be laws that are worth breaking. You should be extremely careful before assuming that's the case in any given scenario, and I don't think taxi rules are it, no matter how dysfunctional the USA might be.


"taxi protection" laws are really just outdated "people protection" laws. They were just at the time and worked for many years after.

Regardless, all laws should be followed. Thats the whole point of society. We agree to follow the laws collectively.


Really though we are. Even if Uber goes out of business, taxi companies are going to get wise that customers want the Uber experience and all of a sudden they'll all have to get apps to compete.

Uber broke a status quo in the state of the transportation industry and we should all be grateful for that. They also became a champion for a certain type of activism that I think a lot of us would like to see more of.

Think carefully before you deny Uber the activist label. Using ethically shady methods to push through social agendas is precisely what activism is. Not everyone falls on the same side of the line, but you can't not call it activism. Labor strikes were considered extremely problematic to many.


I have a perspective of an European. Here on the Old Continent, we've already had that "Uber experience", and it didn't require companies to blatantly ignore the law and burn money to keep regulators at bay (not to say there weren't regulatory tensions, but they quickly got resolved in courts and regulations were updated; that's how a civilized society is supposed to work). So excuse me if I don't see Uber as innovative.

As for their activism, this is the flavour we know from dystopian movies about evil corporations disregarding the laws to eke out some profits. In a way, I can't wait for an Uber in biotech sector - maybe a small engineered pandemic is what people need to understand that regulations should not be ignored on a whim by companies seeking profits.


We're all better off? That's an incredibly broad statement.

The laws on the books still exist for a good reason. Even if you feel that Uber is somehow exempt/makes good choices with the people it chooses to employ via the platform, does that apply to any other "uber-esque" groups with more lax enforcement?


"The laws on the books still exist for a good reason."

That's... optimistic. Many laws were put in place to benefit other (incumbent) businesses, or in reaction to conditions that no longer hold, or due to ideas proven false or at least no longer fashionable.

That's not necessarily good reason to break the law (though sometimes it is), but anyone shold feel free to lobby for removal or change of a law.


Let's also acknowledge that it's not just Uber the company skirting the law, it's also the millions of people who use their service. The people have spoken with their dollars instead of their votes.


lets also acknowledge that there are billions of people who are using their dollars to vote against uber by taking taxis, use lyft, take public transportation, purchae cars, walk, or ride their bike.

in other words, thats a terrible argument in support of uber.


> Corporate citizens have an obligation to obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate.

To some extent. If the fine is $50 for each infraction, and you have $10bn in the bank, you really don't have to obey the law.

You can lobby to have the law changed and not obey the law (if you are willing to pay any and all fines, while you are lobbying). Uber's use case didn't exist 10+ years ago, and as such, most laws weren't made for that not set up to account for that.

I personally find that to be a valid example of where it's acceptable not to follow the law.


> To some extent.

what?!??

no, you have always have an obligation to. Being obliged doesn't mean you're going to, but you do have an obligation.

> I personally find that to be a valid example of where it's applicable not to follow the law

oh great, now we all get to decide what laws we will or won't follow. is that really the precedent you are arguing for?


You've never jaywalked in your life then, right?

The law is generally something that evolves, because the world evolves.


Do regular citizens, such as Rosa Parks, not have the same obligation?

Personally I consider civil disobedience of unjust laws to be acceptable, for either a single person or for an organized group of people (such as Uber).


Civil disobedience implies actions in the open and being willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. If Uber had made a public statement that they were instituting a policy to refuse service to city and law enforcement officials and were willing to take their lumps, you might have a point.


And uber does things in the open. They openly violate the law and reveal to citizens how much corrupt politicians are hurting them by taking away their transportation choices.

This works only if it happens on a massive scale. If Uber didn't use this program, it's likely that their civil disobedience would end before it's large enough to get their message out.


It appears that other ridesharing apps have managed to "get the message out" without devising nefarious plots to confuse law enforcement. And for that matter despite various covert Uber-run attempts to sabotage their business and take away the public's transportation choices.

The idea that Uber is some civil liberties campaign for improved transportation options rather than a corporation with an unusually aggressive disregard for anyone that gets in their way is rather exploded by the most cursory examination of their actions.


Which other ridesharing apps have fixed broken political systems? From what I can see, most of them wait for Uber to fix politics and then just swoop in after the fact to make money.


I don't think any ridesharing apps have "fixed broken political systems", least of all Uber. But there are many ridesharing apps which operated in local territories before Uber, and many of them managed to do it without writing software to deceive law enforcement, coordinating personal attacks on journalists who criticised them or trying to kill startup competitors with fake bookings.


Before Uber, SF, NYC and Mumbai and many other political systems prevented competitors from providing better service than yellow cabs. Uber's political activism has fixed this.

coordinating personal attacks on journalists who criticised them

This was an ethical hypothetical, not a thing that actually happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-campbell/what-was-said-...

fake bookings.

Uber made real bookings and then gave the driver a sales pitch during the ride. All they did was pay their competitors for the right to offer drivers a better deal.

Kind of the opposite of Google/Apple/etc colluding NOT to offer each other's employees a better deal.


To be honest, the fact that an executive is prepared to publicly advocate harassment of journalists as an "ethical hypothetical" thing is a pretty good indication of what they actually are prepared to do in private. Sorry but the "I'm a good friend who overheard part of the conversation and don't think he said the things he's already apologised for saying" defence isn't the most convincing, especially given the company's well-publicised use of comparable tactics in other areas, including hiring private investigators to go after employees that had reported sexual harassment. Your insistence that Uber made real bookings (and just happened to cancel most of them) is a lie, period.

You don't have to think taxi medallion laws are particularly rational to find Uber's behaviour in many, many areas indefensible.


Yeah good point, Rosa Parks also made billions from her civil disobedience.


Yeah, Rosa Parks civil disobedience was a for profit operation! Please stop insulting her. Uber is the embodiment of corporate evil, these people think they are above the law.


I didn't say she made a profit. I said she broke a law she felt was unjust, same as Uber, and that according to ForHackernews' reasoning she should not have done this. My point is that his reasoning is wrong, and merely a post-hoc rationalization for general dislike of Uber.

I did not make the comparison you seem to be arguing against, namely that Rosa Parks and Uber are equivalent in all possible ways.


>comparing Rosa Parks, who fought for civil rights to Uber, who actively contributes to undermining worker's rights in over 20 countries.

only on HN


They're making the important point that what people really mean is "laws I agree or don't agree with" not "laws". Hopefully not only on HN do people have reflective capacity to see this.


Its worse on Reddit


I agree they have an obligation to obey the law.

I disagree that they should lobby to change it. I understand that realistically that is what they will do, but I don't think it's the ethically correct thing.

Laws are in place to benefit all of society, they shouldn't be changed on behalf of specific corporations, regardless of how much money the "donate".


Laws are in place to benefit those in power not "all of society," as anyone who does not benefit from them can attest to. And I agree, corporations cannot be allowed to change the laws to suit them.


well, corporations can't change laws. They can only lobby. And laws are passed by the majority to benefit a majority, that's how a democracy works.


Laws are passed by a tiny percentage of the population, alleged (not necessarily de facto) representatives of the interests of majority. So not confuse republic with a direct democracy.


If only we lived in an actual democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig


In a democracy, the voters are the ones in power


So you oppose Apple and other tech companies lobbying for gay and transgender rights? Or Google lobbying for net neutrality?


That powers are sometimes used for good does not imply the existence of those powers is a net positive.


No but I am for Google and Apple investors holding the management to their fiduciary duty to turn a profit. Lobbying for gay rights seems very loosely connected to that goal.

Edit: There is not a fiduciary duty to turn a profit, but there is a fiduciary duty to put the corporation's interests above your personal interests.


There is no fiduciary duty to turn a profit


You are right - thanks for the correction. However, there is certainly a fiduciary duty to put the interests of the corporation above your personal interests as a high-level manager.


Yes, I'm against corporate lobbying in all cases, even when they're lobbying for causes that I believe in like LGBT rights and net neutrality. I would be quite a hypocrite if I only supported corporate lobbying when it was for causes that I agreed with. Ideally corporations would have no place in politics.

And please don't conflate "doesn't support lobbying for XXX" with "doesn't support XXX". They're really orthogonal concepts.


Greyball makes it easier for Uber to continue breaking the law.

It's like drug dealers using police scanners to determine if the police are nearby.


Or like non-Jews hiding Jews from the Nazi police.

Obviously that's a dramatic example, but so is the drug dealer example.

If Uber believes that the taxi industry is wrongfully colluding with the government to try to stop Uber from operating, then it's not necessarily wrong for Uber to do whatever it can to continue operating.


If Uber believes the taxi industry and the government are wrongfully colluding, it has the means to legally make that case as well as in the court of public opinion.

That is obviously not true for the extreme example you cited of genocide under fascism, so, I don't think it makes sense to compare the two.


Exactly.

Uber didn't have to have Greyball in the first place. Every driver that got intimidated/assaulted should go to the police. Every time a competitor pulled some shenanigans against Uber, they should sue. And so on and so forth.

This is just smokescreen. It's obvious what the intent was.


No, sorry, Uber doesn't get to resort to some kind of corporate vigilantism and "do whatever it can to continue operating".

Uber can go through the proper legal channels to address the concerns it has.


Laws take years, even decades to change. We'd never have any progress if every technological advancement had to wait for the law to catch up and regulate it.


We do have quite a lot of advancement which comes without violating the law. Also breaking the social canvas to correct something you feel is unfairly repressed/enforced is not something to do lightly.

Let me give you an example here. I think Uber is a bad thing, but there's nothing I can do to oppose them, legally, that is. Should I carry out my own justice, illegally ? You can see that this pattern of thought quickly falls down, because making compromises is actually an important part of living in society.


It sounds like this happened in some places - uber cars getting vandalized in France, for example.

Once you say "we're not going to follow the law", do you have the moral right to demand it be enforced on other people?


God, I wish HN had a downvote button.


It does - you just need a certain amount of karma (500?) to get it. That's why some answers are grayed out; get enough downvotes, and your writing will blend in more and more with the background.


Why, exactly ?


I know. HIPAA and SEC regulations are the reason why tech can't quite seem to disrupt the medical and financial industry. I wish a company like Uber will just go in and break every rule until enforcement finally realizes medical and financial regulation is a silly idea.

Tax avoidance and laundering of criminal money is a genuine value-add to many an individual's portfolio I don't know why governments around the world want to prevent banks from doing it.

Arthur Andersen did nothing wrong.


how dare you utter such impure thoughts on a forum named "Hacker News". Regulations is always for the greater good!!! /s


Haha, not sure why this is being down voted. This is meant to be a funny, sarcastic comment :-)


If Uber thinks law is wrong why don't they start a campaign to change it? England or France are supposed to be democratic states, aren't they?


A less extreme example would be saying that you bought that weed for your glaucoma.


https://youtu.be/t5zQpN28xa4

Life imitates art.


Actually, the art in this case imitated this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-vUaawaF8


actually the drug dealer police scanner analogy is pretty appropriate even if its not 100% accurate.

Is it inherently illegal for a drug dealer to scan for police in the area and close shop if they believe officers are nearby?


I get what you're going for. Where's the line beyond which avoiding detection / policing is wrong. Like for example, if I'm a terrorist, then if I'm plotting an attack and avoiding surveillance and policing, would I still be wrong if I've not executed the plot yet?


Obstruction of justice and interfering with police duties are crimes in plenty of jurisdictions. I'm not sure Waze is a good comparison - your behavior around knowing where a police car was sighted is to comply better with the law, so it'd be hard to argue it's obstruction of justice.


> your behavior around knowing where a police car was sighted is to comply better with the law

It may be...it may also be to avoid the area, for illegitimate (I'm a criminal police are looking for) or legitimate (the local PD is notoriously racist against people of my race, and I want to avoid being hassled) reasons.


I think that Waze is a great comparison. There's an app which is explicitly used to find and avoid police in order to flaut the law.

The main difference in my view is that Waze is individual people doing this, which we approve of, conversely Uber is a corporation many dislike. In situations like this it's important to acknowledge bias and try to abstract to the general case and reason about that.


Waze users are following the law when they get near Police officers. Uber users are continuing illegal behavior but obstructing police visibility. Uber's behavior is more like radar jamming or putting up a barrier in front of police.


Exactly, if -for example- a police officer tries to pull me over for a traffic infraction, my speeding off and attempts to make it more difficult to ticket me is only a natural and decent personal impulse!


You have a legal obligation not to flee an officer. However, even if you sell drugs or sex, you have no obligation to approach a known police officer and offer to sell them drugs/sex.


You make a distinction between staying passive and not helping an investigation (the drugs example) - and actively deterring the investigation (the flight example).

That's a valid distinction to make, however given how much development effort companies like Uber and VW invested in their tools, I think those are clear cases of active deferring.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are making the wrong distinction. Fleeing a police officer is explicitly illegal, I believe the crime is resisting arrest or something equivalent.

Actively telling all your hooker friends to stay home because the cops are out is not illegal. Nor is it illegal to say "oh hi there officer" before your hooker friend propositions a cop. That's basically what Uber did.


Don't be too sure! Check out this amazing survey article on "Crime-facilitating speech" by Eugene Volokh: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf

Not only will you find examples of things like courts finding liability if "a newspaper publishes the name of a witness to a crime, thus making it easier for the criminal to intimidate or kill the witness" (with no intent on the part of the newspaper) [18] or "a Web site or a newspaper article names a Web site that contains copyright-infringing material, or describes it in enough detail that readers could quickly find it using a search engine" [26], there are also examples more directly relevant to this situation. I think references [19, 37, 38, 39, 40] are most relevant.

[19]: "publish[ing] . . .the residence address or telephone number" of various law enforcement employees "with the intent to obstruct justice" is illegal in many states, including California.

[37] My reading of United States v. Lane, 514 F.2d 22 (9th Cir. 1975) is that advising people not to sell drugs to a person because you heard something interesting on a police scanner is aiding and abetting a conspiracy. The court said the defendant "could not seriously contend that he was discouraging, rather than aiding and abetting, the commission of the crime" in response to his assertion that "he actually advised against it".

[38]: My reading of United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2004) is that it is walking down a trail to warn a person whom park rangers intend to arrest is interfering with both the rangers and their official duties (and thus illegal).


Uber isn't looking after its hooker "friends" though, it's attempting to thwart investigations into its own business model which is profiting from contractors operating in a legally grey area in many jurisdictions.

Seems more akin to developing a system to screen guests at your hotel - which you insist isn't an illegal brothel and is making good faith attempts to uphold the law - to ensure you're only earning "enhanced room service" commissions from people that aren't investigating whether they might be illegal.

Even if that isn't an offence in itself, it still looks like hard evidence against any claims they might make of intent to comply with the law in various other cases being brought against them.


It's closer to them saying, "Yes, sure...I'm happy to take money for sex...wait right here for a while", and then hiding.

Which could be obstruction.

If the app told them they were banned, it would be closer to your analogy. But, it shows fake cars circling about that never pick you up. It's actively deceiving law enforcement


Ah, but is it deceiving law enforcement with the knowledge that that person is right now trying to arrest you, or is it just refusing service to law enforcement because they don't like them? The latter is covered by the TOS where it says they can refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.


there are a number of holes in your thought process.

first, and most important to this discussion, is that it is definitely deceptive especially when you are going to such extremes as documenting burner mobile phones and preventing their use on the pretense of hiding from regulators.

second, and less important for this discussion, but a business has he right to refuse service to any ONE person for whatever legal reason they choose (whether they specify hat reason or not is a different topic). this should not be confused with deniying service to a GROUP of people for whatever reason they want which is discrimination, and is illegal, whether outline in a TOS or not.


Fake cars circling around is pretty deliberate deception. I assume they have a more straightforward way to refuse service.


> Nor is it illegal to say "oh hi there officer" before your hooker friend propositions a cop. That's basically what Uber did.

Uber built an infrastructure to be able to systematically detect and obstruct officers in all locations they are operating.

Comparing this with saying "hi officer" is a slight understatement.


The difference is with the scale then? At what point on this scale (number of instances of the act) does the illegality start?


I don't know how this is handled in US law, but in many law systems there is the question of intent. If you say "hi officer" with the intent of warning your partner that might in theory already be illegal. (obstruction of justice)

While in that case, intent would be be very difficult to prove, it's rather obvious if you spend planning time and resources building a software tool with the express purpose to warn you of officers.


Exactly.

1. They have no obligation to law enforcement to make it easy to catch them. They're making it so that it's harder for LE to use their own service against them. Good investigators wouldn't investigate under their real name, or with their police-union-linked credit card, so it only seems fair.

2. Taxi and municipal transport are easy pandering-demographics for local government, creating monopolies. This isn't Uber vs. competitors, or vs. average citizens, this is Uber vs. the cartels. Everyone, in the long-run, benefits.


> temporarily


It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement.

I would volunteer to work on that project because its whole point is to evade law enforcement. A lot of us (hackers/technologists) take a pretty dim view of arbitrary State regulations and "laws" and are quite happy to work to evade them. Most people who fit the techno-libertarian or cypherpunk mentality would probably feel the same way.


And here I thought that's just teenagers "who fit the techno-libertarian or cypherpunk mentality", and only until they finally grow up.

The mindset you're describing is pretty self-centered and ignorant of how societies work. The law is there to reconcile conflicting interest so that people don't start using violence to pursue their goals. Techno-libertarian teenagers should imagine what would happen if some people they disagree with contracted that libertarian spirit.

ETA:

Announcing two new startups - Uber Biotech and Uber Medicare. Because what could possibly go wrong from arbitrarily avoiding regulations for the sake of profits.


How dare Rosa Parks defiantly take a seat at the front of the bus..

How could she be so self-centered and... adolescent?


She was not, as far as I understand, opposed to laws just because they are laws. She had very specific moral objections to very specific laws.

Anti-racism != anarchism.


Uber is... Anarchy? Like in the movie Thunderdome? Sure.

Their opposition wasn't arbitrary; they knew they could provide a better service outside the monopolistic constraints that were already in place. So they fought those battles and because of those battles, everyone gets to experience a much better ride service than the antiquated taxi system.


Come on. They didn't fought for your better taxi experience. They fought for your money!

While your point could stand in theory, could work with a different company, it's Uber we're talking about! Those guys who keep showing, since day one, that they don't give a flying fuck about people beyond the money they get for them! The company painted itself a pretty consistent image over the years, and it's the image of a smart asshole with too much money to spend.


Not uber in particular; the anarchism is in the mentality that "you want me to circumvent the law and avoid law enforcement? in principle, I'm in!" Which seemed to be the position mindcrime was taking.


Everyone gets to experience fancy VC subsidized rides, in any case. I don't see any clear argument that uber is actually more economically efficient than a standard cab...


My time is worth something; standing on a corner at 3pm, checking the time, calling the main office - "oh yeah, he's five minutes away", 45 minutes still waiting, call again..

With Uber/Lyft, I can see when they'll arrive. I can plan to do something with that time if the wait is long enough. I can quickly redirect them to where I am if there's a misunderstanding.

Yes, it's more efficient.


There are plenty taxi of companies worldwide that utilize mobile applications without also showing a disregard for law. The two things don't have to go together. From outside-US perspective, Uber is much less innovative than you'd think. They look simply like assholes with lot of VC money to burn on lawyers.


While you're congratulating the world, I'm in Lincoln, NE still waiting on a cab at 4pm.

I'm an adult; if I want to enter into an agreement to pay someone else to give me a ride and I'm not harming anyone else, then I will. Fuck their stupid arbitrary laws.


While subjective, there is a difference between breaking laws / fighting authority for moral reasons, and breaking laws for financial gain. Yeah, maybe you as an engineer would feel morally righteous for "fighting the man", but Uber doesn't care about that -- it just wants $$$.


Uber is fighting the man, in effort to capture $$$/market. That's their market. A business makes money?

As much as you wouldn't like to admit, they've broken through a market that was once monopolized and the cities had zero interest in doing anything about it.

You now have superior car ride services in part for the work they've done in the market. They have raised the bar.


But their competitors who comply with the law are losing now.


Exactly the point: the law has ceased to serve the people and has become irrelevant. It's on the government to change it in order for society to progress, not hold us back.

Remember, people are using Uber. Citizens. Voters. They are voting with their dollar for the superior product. The government's role has become obsolete in the transaction.


And who paid for the law to be created.


Yeah, Rosa Parks civil disobedience was a for profit operation! Please stop insulting her. Uber is the embodiment of corporate evil, these people think they are above the law.

It's strange how I need to copy and paste my arguments on this thread, like you know Uber was itself astro-turfing HN right now.


You need to grow up from calling people you disagree with teenagers.


Are you also going to take the same generous view towards people evading State regulations and laws that you don't like? Because if you are only okay with people evading laws that you don't like, but they should obey the ones you do like, then you are setting yourself above the law. That way lies authoritarianism.


Not sure how civil disobedience leads to authoritarianism rather than the opposite. Also, by your reasoning, civil disobedience is never justified. And does Trump being President change your reasoning at all?


Civil disobedience works precisely by accepting the consequences of the law. This is the literal opposite of Uber's behavior.


Civil disobedience is breaking the law one perceives as unjust (or refusing to follow it) to make a point about the legal system. It includes accepting the consequences of one's actions. What Uber does is garden variety illegal business practice. No societal benefit in mind, just money to be made.


Disobedience would be refusing to take part in such scummy schemes, and making a huge stink over it.

> Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws

PROFESSED. To twist that on this on its head, and use another sociopath to excuse it is hilarious. But since you ask: no, that's even MORE reason to not accept this bullshit.


So then is the country clerk that refused to sign marriage certificates for gays a hero too? She was just practicing civil disobedience.

Or perhaps she should just move very slowly when it comes to same sex couples, just never can get the work done. She isn't refusing it just never gets done.


I think this is best exemplified by the 20th centuries most famous authoritarian, Martin Luther King Jnr


Again, civil disobedience accepts the legal consequences of its actions and is part of a vocal, public effort to change the laws the person or group deems unjust. The entire premise is to create better laws for everyone to abide by.

Uber uses deception to shield itself from the consequences of its criminal actions and consolidate wealth for itself. I'm assuming you're not trolling, so think long and hard about your own understanding of society the next time you want to compare MLK to an anarcho-capitalist megacorp.


In cities where Uber is legal and regulated, they are not breaking any laws and have no requirement to track city investigations against them.

Uber were also being disobedient in order to get better laws for they and everybody else to abide by.

Better yet - their technique pretty much won. There aren't many cities remaining that still attempt to ban ride sharing.


My reply to aianus applies equally to this.

Consider further; how did the narrative of Uber needing to break the law to disrupt (read: try to overthrow) the existing taxi industry morph into excusing their practices as affecting positive social change? Remember, the context of the boycotts during the American civil rights movement was never to "disrupt" southern businesses.


Again, there are plenty of cities where Uber have been successful where they didn't break any laws. Likewise there are many cities that have banned Uber where they don't operate. The number of cities where they operate in a grey area of regulation are often few and often for short periods of time.

Uber are more interested in operating in a regulated environment, hence all their lobbying and hence why their first hires in new cities are usually government liaison people.

Uber is equally successful in cities where it was initially thought illegal, in cities where it was always legal and in cities where it became legal.

Many other companies have ridden the coattails of the regulatory work that Uber has done.

If they were an "anarcho-capitalistic" business then they simply wouldn't care for the laws anywhere. They'd be operating in Nevada, Austin and in all of these other cities that have since banned them. They would be signing up drivers with no license or background checks. They wouldn't need any government liaison people. They'd do no lobbying, etc. and as bad as they are - they aren't that company (although many want them to be)


"Ridden the coattails of the regulatory work that Uber has done"? I think the problem is that you have a very poor grasp of how the branches of US government (legislative in particular) interact with businesses, and thus don't really know how to distinguish among any agent that effects legislative change.

First learn about, and then read some commentaries on the functions and history of the three branches of US government. Then learn about how lobbying works, then read about the various rights movements that've occurred in the US.


I don't see how they aren't "creating better laws for everyone to abide by".

They're not a monopoly on ridesharing and because of their efforts converting the hearts and minds of consumers and politicians others can do it too like Juno, Tesla, Lyft, etc.


Assertion: medallion regulations are currently onerous and against the financial interests of cities and citizens. Uber's public and explicit proposal to change the medallion system: " "

Your statement applies to literally every company that has lobbyists. You need way more than that to present evidence for your claim.

Again, civil disobedience's core mechanism for gaining the support needed to enact the change it publicly and explicitly advocates for is to accept the consequences of breaking the unjust laws.


How far does your scofflaw streak go? Is this different from adding law enforcement blocking controls to any illegal tech product? Should everyone get to decide what laws to follow?

I think you are describing anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism.


But here's the thing: What we have now is anarchy. It's just that the powerful make the laws, and con the masses. Some places it looks like capitalism, other places more like kleptocracy. But just about everywhere, the game is rigged.


I think you are describing anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism

FWIW, I consider those terms, along with "voluntaryist" and/or "market anarchist" to be approximately synonymous for all practical purposes.


Should everyone get to decide what laws to follow?

You act as if they don't already. Society works pretty well anyways.


Tell that to the millions of Americans in prison. How did that work out for them?


That example is supposed to inspire us to respect the law more? You need more practice at this rhetoric thing...


I didn't say you had to respect it. Unjust laws should be changed. There is a process for that.

It is fundamentally unfair to have one segment of society (tech workers) have a different set of rules than the rest. Do you disagree?


The process doesn't work as well as you think it does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig


Society > USA.


Yes, everyone should decide what laws to follow. Ask rosa parks or any poor soul unfortunate enough to be a citizen of nazi Germany.


The civil rights movement was in no way about the abolition of the rule of law. Hitler's promise of greatness actually did seduce a ton of the economically and socially devastated German population. Hitler was a known outlaw. Even if you can't yet think your premise through to the end, at least consider the consistency and truth of your own words.


So Travis Kalanick is a modern day Rosa Parks? Really?


But wouldn't it bother those same people to think they're working for a Megacorp instead? Maybe I have a dim view of law enforcement, but wouldn't I also not want to work for Ares Macrotechnology?


Some of them, yes. Depends on the Megacorp, I think. I mean, I work for a Megacorp now, while working on bootstrapping a startup on the side. But I don't think I'd work for Uber (not because of this though).


But you know that upfront. You can take appropriate precautions up front. If this is actually illegal, the poor engineers could be looking at conspiracy charges at least.

You know the danger and you're doing it with your eyes open. They probably didn't know, and i'd bet Uber sacrifices a few engineers just like VW did.


> arbitrary State regulations

They're way less arbitrary than Uber's action, so that's just projection. You want out of the social contract, be my guest.


Assuming you're against -arbitrary- people and entities operating above the law, how do you square that with the opinion in your comment?

A broader point is that its 2017; we have a decent grasp of chaos theory. We know that self regulation in chaotic systems takes the form of hard to predict cycles of extreme variation. We know that stabilizing these systems requires external adjustments to parameters; some dampening here, a little increase there, etc. Personally, I've grown to quite enjoy being a part of an economy that has some measure of stability introduced to it.


The problem is once your professional ethics makes this ok, you start to slip further into the rabbit hole.

That's how it becomes OK for a company to facilitate engineering managers to exert pressure where women either agree to have sex with them or suffer career consequences, using corporate institutions to do so.

Hopefully most people around you don't feel that way -- your immaturity will ultimate catch up to you.


Grow up. You're defending destroying society so you can get what YOU think is right (based on how much it increases your net worth?). Did you similarly fight for the end of copyright? Did you join the pirate party? What about racial equality or gender equality ? Did you fight for those with the same fervor you propose to fight tor Ubers profits? For a company to replace a million others? that's all that's happening btw - one million small businesses are being replaced by one huge one, with a price advantage only because it erodes or destroyers worker protections.

Get a grip. Under any reasonable government Uber would be destroyed tomorrow under the same argument as pirate bay or a torrent tracker - it's conductive to illegality.


What are your thoughts on food safety law? The 40-hour work week? Net neutrality (such as it is)?

Also it's disingenuous to call laws "arbitray". Like them or not, many, if not most laws, are the opposite of arbitrary.


> It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement.

If you worked at Uber, would you work on a feature meant to prevent lyft employee from using the app to poach data about car locations and hailing rides to recruit new lyft drivers? That was supposedly the original reason for this.

Plenty of people do work to keep corporate secrets safe.


It's definitely highly intelligent but just as definitely something that implies a sort of double-or-nothing attitude.

IE, Anything is on the table here, it seems (an attitude that can foster creativity certainly). For example, in the end game would Uber's enemies fair badly if they caught a ride in Uber's automatic cars? Indeed, the cars might even be seeking out people for "accidents".

There's reason even the most innovative Mafiosos often don't make it to old age.

Note also:

"Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justi...

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

And we're talk systematically evading regulators world-wide. ianola but my legal-fantasy mind could compose for people facing a millennium in prison. I assume the reality would be a slap on wrist if they company's influence falls.


I'm not sure of what my opinion of the morality is, but I (as a non-lawyer) don't see this as obstruction of justice.

If I am a prostitute working the streets, and a police officer approaches me to offer me money for sex. But I notice he has police officer boots on, and suspect he is a cop. I then tell him I am not looking to offer any services for money. Is that obstruction of justice?

Perhaps the credit card lookups (or other methods) violated privacy laws, but I don't see how refusing service should count as obstruction of justice.


IANAL either, but there's a difference between not falling into a trap and deceiving the authorities. To continue the analogy, it would be more akin to telling the officer that you're willing to offer services if he meets you at a different street corner with the intention of fleeing later.


>It's easy to imagine engineers working on small parts of the system, and never really connecting the dots that the whole point is to evade law enforcement.

Actually I find this harder to believe than the engineers knowing full well what the system does and doing it anyway. Personally I would never want to work on a system without knowing the value it provides and how it fits into the larger picture.


> I like to think i'd decline to work on that

Does it say something bad about me that I'd be the one jumping up and down to work on this?

It seems really interesting from an analytical perspective and the malicious side of it would leave me very satisfied if it worked. Morality be damned it'd be satisfying.


Well, it is deviously clever.

But using it at scale with drivers and investors at risk? That's crazy.


Given the examples of transit authority collusion and cartel competitors wielding bats, accosting drivers and making customers feel like Baghdad is safer by comparison; I was thinking genius like Ragnar Danneskjöld.

In Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar typifies law enforcement as it ought to be (in Rand's view)--engaging those who claim authority but resort to violence instead of productivity as a means of controlling wealth.


What does it say about me that I'd relish the thought of working on building this out for production?


I'd rather go homeless than work on that.


Really?


Yeah... I guess I am too picky. My uncle was even better at engineering school than me and he also ended up as a derelict / janitor so maybe it is genetic. We both seem to be content with a rather low standard of living + powerful imaginations so that we can enjoy that almost as much as we would a much higher standard of living although we wouldn't really enjoy either all that much due to depression or whatever.


But imagine how interesting the system is. Tying together so many data sources, and creating any output you want.


I guees it just makes a list of suspicious people and later managers look through them and ban them manually.


How do we feel about agreeing to do it and then quieting reporting everything I do?


if they are doing that to people they don't want to ride, doesn't it make sense they are doing this with riders?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: