4 ms·

I wish that more of silicon valley would penalize people for reprehensible behavior. If Uber execs were ostracized rather than lauded... if investors pounded t

by erdevs 10y ago

I wish that more of silicon valley would penalize people for reprehensible behavior. If Uber execs were ostracized rather than lauded... if investors pounded the table about legal risks and the importance of ethical business rather than cheering along any behavior that makes the numbers grow (temporarily)... we might not have Zenefits melting down, nor sociopathic exec teams at major companies that are held up as scions of the tech world. If this is one of the best and brightest companies the tech industry has to offer, we have a deeply worrisome problem. If pursuing paper growth absolutely trumps ethical concerns, we are feeding into a horrible system. If nobody calls this shit out and there isn't actual financial and social/cultural consequence, things will only get worse.

WayneBro 10y ago
I don't see what's so wrong about using an investigator to find out more about the guy who is suing you. Can someone explain that to me? Is it against the law to find all publicly available information about someone or to follow them around? The big criminal act that I can see here is that "Ergo" (the company that Uber hired) wasn't licensed in NY. Seems like that would be on Ergo, not Uber.
- fatbird 10y ago
  "Investigation" covers a wide range of activities, and many things one would do while investigating can themselves be chilling, intimidating, or harassing; and using investigation to chill, intimidate or harass can be the point. The Church Of Scientology is famous for using "investigation" to destroy its critics. In this case, the judge clearly felt that Ergo's investigations were far beyond routine due diligence on a plaintiff. Remember, there was previously an incident where an Uber exec bragged at a party about using investigators to destroy journalists who might investigate them. [0] [0] http://www.dailytech.com/Uber+Exec+Threatens+to+Spend+Millions+to+Stalk+Female+Reporter+and+Her+Family/article36907.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Uber+Exec+Threatens+to+Spend+Millio...
  - WayneBro 10y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for elaborating. If investigators don't have any power to do anything that a normal public person can do, like finding public information or digging through someone's trash...then I don't see why anyone should be barred from employing that. However, I know that in many states you must be licensed to advertise yourself as a Private Investigator. I don't know why that would be the case though unless PIs have special authority to do things that normal people can't do. I mean, I do know why - it's political for one thing since you can't even be a PI in some states without having police or military experience. Looking around, I don't see any special privileges that a PI has that a normal person does not. They cannot trespass on private property, they cannot wiretap a phone or gain access to private records. The only special privilege that they enjoy is that they generally won't be subject to harassment or stalking laws if they follow someone around in public.
    - fatbird 10y ago
      You're not barred from investigating someone or using investigators to do so in a trial, but the prohibition here is about the effect created by the investigation (just like it's the effect of 100 phone calls a day that constitutes stalking, not using the phone itself). Legal proceedings have a well developed decorum/civility to them that the judge can enforce at her discretion, including criminal penalties. If Uber/Ergo had limited itself to not interviewing the plaintiff's family, friends, and acquaintances, they'd probably have been fine; but going around to everyone you know and asking a lot of dark questions is pretty clearly going to intimidate a plaintiff and chill other potential plaintiffs, and that's obviously the point--especially when interviewing is unlikely to surface anything not already found through records searches and the discovery process.
      - WayneBro 10y ago
        Thank you. I can totally see why that kind of behavior should be prohibited.
shalmanese 10y ago
People are doing it in their own, quiet way. I know plenty of talented folk who have been heavily recruited by Uber and the main deterrent to them joining has been the perceived lack of culture fit.

by erdevs 10y ago

WayneBro 10y ago

I don't see what's so wrong about using an investigator to find out more about the guy who is suing you. Can someone explain that to me? Is it against the law to find all publicly available information about someone or to follow them around? The big criminal act that I can see here is that "Ergo" (the company that Uber hired) wasn't licensed in NY. Seems like that would be on Ergo, not Uber.

fatbird 10y ago
"Investigation" covers a wide range of activities, and many things one would do while investigating can themselves be chilling, intimidating, or harassing; and using investigation to chill, intimidate or harass can be the point. The Church Of Scientology is famous for using "investigation" to destroy its critics. In this case, the judge clearly felt that Ergo's investigations were far beyond routine due diligence on a plaintiff. Remember, there was previously an incident where an Uber exec bragged at a party about using investigators to destroy journalists who might investigate them. [0] [0] http://www.dailytech.com/Uber+Exec+Threatens+to+Spend+Millions+to+Stalk+Female+Reporter+and+Her+Family/article36907.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Uber+Exec+Threatens+to+Spend+Millio...
- WayneBro 10y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for elaborating. If investigators don't have any power to do anything that a normal public person can do, like finding public information or digging through someone's trash...then I don't see why anyone should be barred from employing that. However, I know that in many states you must be licensed to advertise yourself as a Private Investigator. I don't know why that would be the case though unless PIs have special authority to do things that normal people can't do. I mean, I do know why - it's political for one thing since you can't even be a PI in some states without having police or military experience. Looking around, I don't see any special privileges that a PI has that a normal person does not. They cannot trespass on private property, they cannot wiretap a phone or gain access to private records. The only special privilege that they enjoy is that they generally won't be subject to harassment or stalking laws if they follow someone around in public.
  - fatbird 10y ago
    You're not barred from investigating someone or using investigators to do so in a trial, but the prohibition here is about the effect created by the investigation (just like it's the effect of 100 phone calls a day that constitutes stalking, not using the phone itself). Legal proceedings have a well developed decorum/civility to them that the judge can enforce at her discretion, including criminal penalties. If Uber/Ergo had limited itself to not interviewing the plaintiff's family, friends, and acquaintances, they'd probably have been fine; but going around to everyone you know and asking a lot of dark questions is pretty clearly going to intimidate a plaintiff and chill other potential plaintiffs, and that's obviously the point--especially when interviewing is unlikely to surface anything not already found through records searches and the discovery process.
    - WayneBro 10y ago
      Thank you. I can totally see why that kind of behavior should be prohibited.

shalmanese 10y ago

People are doing it in their own, quiet way. I know plenty of talented folk who have been heavily recruited by Uber and the main deterrent to them joining has been the perceived lack of culture fit.