4 ms·

This is certainly a hardball approach, but I see nothing especially wrong with it. When you install Uber, you authorize it to send location data. If you happe

This is certainly a hardball approach, but I see nothing especially wrong with it. When you install Uber, you authorize it to send location data. If you happen to work at a transportation enforcement office, that is going to be immediately apparent to them unless you take countermeasures, such as using a GPS spoofing app. If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me - especially when that entity has billions of dollars at stake. That they are using tactics like this shouldn't be surprising. It should be expected. I kind of have a newfound respect for Uber's ingenuity after reading this. It's probably one of hundreds of examples of the reasons that they have risen so fast.

untog 10y ago
> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me What an absolutely absurd way to characterise the actions of those who enforce law with those who attempt to break it.
- downandout 10y ago
  It isn't necessarily about breaking laws. There are many legitimate reasons to deny service to undercover law enforcement personnel who are often simply looking for ways to boost their agency's revenue through specious allegations. Uber has no legal obligation to do anything for people that do not declare themselves to be law enforcement personnel with special rights. Not that it will ever stop them, but I often build a clause into the TOS of my websites that law enforcement personnel may not use the site without prior authorization. I have no idea if this will ever stand up in court, but perhaps this clause will, for example, be useful in defeating a search warrant for user information since the suspicion upon which the warrant is based would necessarily have been obtained without authorization unless the government asked for permission to access the site in advance. A healthy disdain for government agents makes for a healthy, free society.
hackuser 10y ago
> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. But this is dealing with government. Avoiding the law and law enforcement is wrong and often illegal.
- downandout 10y ago
  This program was cleared by what I assume to be a highly paid, competent legal department. So I'm going to guess that you are wrong about the "illegal" part. They are a private business that can refuse service to anyone. Even businesses that aren't even close to breaking the law may have perfectly legitimate reasons to avoid serving people in law enforcement, whose job it often is to cause problems and increase expenses for the businesses they visit. It would be illegal to refuse to allow them to do their job if they properly identified themselves as officers, and those officers had some kind of court order authorizing them to seize a car for example. But these are undercover agents posing as legitimate customers - a completely different scenario. >For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. I agree with this, but your government doesn't. Imagine you are falsely accused of a crime. You are quite likely to be fired, you will certainly be publicly slandered, and you may lose family and friends over it. It will take years and substantial amounts of money to clear your name, and when you do, most of the damage will have already been done anyway. In the end, you won't even receive as much as an apology. The government doesn't offer you the same kind of mercy that you believe you should afford to others. So there's no reason to afford the government or anyone employed by it any courtesy beyond the bare minimum to which they are legally entitled. In the case of an unannounced undercover agent, they are nothing more than fellow humans with absolutely no special rights.
  - tkone 10y ago
    Just because a lawyer has said something is "OK" doesn't make it legal. Lawyers (even expensive ones) give bad advice all the time for lots of various reasons, or advice that isn't bad at the time, but bad going forward. Did the lawyer understand this was being used to circumvent the law? Or did they understand it was to prevent violations of their terms of service? Is it possible the company either changed the plan after the lawyer saw it, or didn't fully explain the capacities to the lawyer? Accused of a crime? Likely not to many of the scenarios you mentioned. Indicted on criminal charges? Likely yes, but that's why we have criminal indictments. It makes it much harder for the government to falsely accuse you of a crime.

untog 10y ago

> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me What an absolutely absurd way to characterise the actions of those who enforce law with those who attempt to break it.

downandout 10y ago
It isn't necessarily about breaking laws. There are many legitimate reasons to deny service to undercover law enforcement personnel who are often simply looking for ways to boost their agency's revenue through specious allegations. Uber has no legal obligation to do anything for people that do not declare themselves to be law enforcement personnel with special rights. Not that it will ever stop them, but I often build a clause into the TOS of my websites that law enforcement personnel may not use the site without prior authorization. I have no idea if this will ever stand up in court, but perhaps this clause will, for example, be useful in defeating a search warrant for user information since the suspicion upon which the warrant is based would necessarily have been obtained without authorization unless the government asked for permission to access the site in advance. A healthy disdain for government agents makes for a healthy, free society.

hackuser 10y ago

> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. But this is dealing with government. Avoiding the law and law enforcement is wrong and often illegal.

downandout 10y ago
This program was cleared by what I assume to be a highly paid, competent legal department. So I'm going to guess that you are wrong about the "illegal" part. They are a private business that can refuse service to anyone. Even businesses that aren't even close to breaking the law may have perfectly legitimate reasons to avoid serving people in law enforcement, whose job it often is to cause problems and increase expenses for the businesses they visit. It would be illegal to refuse to allow them to do their job if they properly identified themselves as officers, and those officers had some kind of court order authorizing them to seize a car for example. But these are undercover agents posing as legitimate customers - a completely different scenario. >For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. I agree with this, but your government doesn't. Imagine you are falsely accused of a crime. You are quite likely to be fired, you will certainly be publicly slandered, and you may lose family and friends over it. It will take years and substantial amounts of money to clear your name, and when you do, most of the damage will have already been done anyway. In the end, you won't even receive as much as an apology. The government doesn't offer you the same kind of mercy that you believe you should afford to others. So there's no reason to afford the government or anyone employed by it any courtesy beyond the bare minimum to which they are legally entitled. In the case of an unannounced undercover agent, they are nothing more than fellow humans with absolutely no special rights.
- tkone 10y ago
  Just because a lawyer has said something is "OK" doesn't make it legal. Lawyers (even expensive ones) give bad advice all the time for lots of various reasons, or advice that isn't bad at the time, but bad going forward. Did the lawyer understand this was being used to circumvent the law? Or did they understand it was to prevent violations of their terms of service? Is it possible the company either changed the plan after the lawyer saw it, or didn't fully explain the capacities to the lawyer? Accused of a crime? Likely not to many of the scenarios you mentioned. Indicted on criminal charges? Likely yes, but that's why we have criminal indictments. It makes it much harder for the government to falsely accuse you of a crime.