4 ms·

I'd like to see them subpoenaed to explain what they were doing. They were deliberately violating the law, and trying to avoid detection just makes things much,

I'd like to see them subpoenaed to explain what they were doing. They were deliberately violating the law, and trying to avoid detection just makes things much, much worse. This has got to be illegal.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> This has got to be illegal It doesn't seem that different from Cloudflare et al throwing up CAPTCHAs and blocks when I browse through Tor. Uber was trying to prevent abuse. Until someone identifies themselves as a city official or Uber is put on notice that it is under investigation, I think they are well within their rights to do this.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I don't get the analogy... Cloudflare is trying to protect websites from hacking attempts and similar, most of which is illegal. Their treatment of Tor also wasn't a deliberate decision but the result of empirical data they collected. A government official (or anyone, actually) trying to check for compliance with the law isn't doing anything illegal. Uber may be within their rights because companies usually have wide latitude to refuse doing business with someone, although that will ultimately depend on what kind of violations they were trying to hide, how invasive their stalking of customers was etc. Morally, though, this is just more of the shady shit that's been coming out day after day. How any investor would be willing to trust them with their money is beyond me. Considering how intransparent their financials are, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends in an Enron-style meltdown.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > Cloudflare is trying to protect websites from hacking attempts and similar, most of which is illegal I don't think we can say "most" Tor traffic "is illegal" [1]. At the very least, we agree that some of it is legal. That means Cloudflare, a private company, is treating users differently based on its interests and its interpretation of the law. > A government official (or anyone, actually) trying to check for compliance with the law isn't doing anything illegal They probably aren't. Neither is Uber. They're just treating their users differently based on their interests and interpretation of the law. Law enforcement has tough-as-nails methods at its disposal. It could subpoena, audit, intercept, sue, et cetera. The downside is those methods come with oversight and transparency requirements. [1] https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en
    - thinkmassive 10y ago
      I think you misinterpreted what matt4077 said. Most "hacking attempts and similar" are illegal. Tor is often (nobody said always) used in attacks, so the IPs of most exit nodes show up during attacks, which requires future users coming from those same exit nodes to solve the captcha. Cloudflare makes these decisions based on data, not on interpreting the law.
      - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        > Cloudflare makes these decisions based on data, not on interpreting the law As they are entitled to do. Uber saw damaging activity coming from burner phones. They blocked and/or modified the related services. If the investigators had identified themselves to Uber and then Uber did this, that might be different (though law enforcement is not, for good reasons, a protected class). The investigators chose a quieter path and Uber reacted accordingly.
    - pokemon-trainer 10y ago
      You are in Libertarian La-La Land to call what Uber did "treating users differently based on its interests and its interpretation of the law". As Volkswagen discovered, in the United States this is called "criminal conspiracy" and "obstruction of justice."
      - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        > As Volkswagen discovered Night and day. Volkswagen was falsifying data provided to the government at an identified testing facility. Uber is fuzzing data and refusing to provide services to certain customers who have not identified themselves as police, though may be*. A city official cannot demand entry to private property without a warrant. Furthermore, one can eject someone from your place of business--again, provided they don't have a warrant. To get a warrant, investigators need probable cause. There are good reasons we limit the power of those seeking probable cause.
        matt4077 10y ago
- FabHK 10y ago
  To be fair, some people at Cloudflare were working on reducing these CAPTCHAs for Tor users, though not sure what the current status is. https://github.com/gtank/captcha-draft/blob/master/captcha-plugin-draft.txt https://github.com/gtank/captcha-draft/blob/master/captcha-p... https://lwn.net/Articles/702399/ https://lwn.net/Articles/702399/
SilasX 10y ago
The article says Uber's legal team approved it: >At least 50 to 60 people inside Uber knew about Greyball, and some had qualms about whether it was ethical or legal. Greyball was approved by Uber’s legal team, headed by Salle Yoo, the general counsel. I (though not a lawyer) assume their reasoning was: "It's legal to use public sources to identify possible law enforcement agents, it's legal to deny services to them. Seems legit."
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Well, that's a bold legal strategy if true -- I wonder why Microsoft simply didn't put it in the Windows license agreement that government users couldn't sue them for antitrust violations! (Uber's real argument seems to be "it violates our terms of service for a government official to try to figure out if we're following the law")
  - SilasX 10y ago
    That wouldn't work: a) exempting themselves from specific laws by EULA generally doesn't work, b) you can block specific people from a service and even police have to leave when told (barring further e.g. probable cause), but police are under no obligation to honor a general "no police" policy. It's legal, though, to kick someone off a service because you think they're a cop. (e.g. biker bars that kick people out on that basis)
- ams6110 10y ago
  Seems to imply that they knew they were breaking the law, which would also seem to constitute mens rea. IANAL.
- rmc 10y ago
  Just because the legal team approved it doesn't mean it is legal. Legal teams make mistakes all the time
zamalek 10y ago
Entrapment is also illegal.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Sure, but is not entrapment. Firstly, Uber was definitely offering the service, so it's not like they tricked them into committing a crime. And the government hailing an Uber ride doesn't meet the objective test that forces a normal, law-abiding citizen to commit a crime.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> This has got to be illegal It doesn't seem that different from Cloudflare et al throwing up CAPTCHAs and blocks when I browse through Tor. Uber was trying to prevent abuse. Until someone identifies themselves as a city official or Uber is put on notice that it is under investigation, I think they are well within their rights to do this.

matt4077 10y ago
I don't get the analogy... Cloudflare is trying to protect websites from hacking attempts and similar, most of which is illegal. Their treatment of Tor also wasn't a deliberate decision but the result of empirical data they collected. A government official (or anyone, actually) trying to check for compliance with the law isn't doing anything illegal. Uber may be within their rights because companies usually have wide latitude to refuse doing business with someone, although that will ultimately depend on what kind of violations they were trying to hide, how invasive their stalking of customers was etc. Morally, though, this is just more of the shady shit that's been coming out day after day. How any investor would be willing to trust them with their money is beyond me. Considering how intransparent their financials are, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends in an Enron-style meltdown.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Cloudflare is trying to protect websites from hacking attempts and similar, most of which is illegal I don't think we can say "most" Tor traffic "is illegal" [1]. At the very least, we agree that some of it is legal. That means Cloudflare, a private company, is treating users differently based on its interests and its interpretation of the law. > A government official (or anyone, actually) trying to check for compliance with the law isn't doing anything illegal They probably aren't. Neither is Uber. They're just treating their users differently based on their interests and interpretation of the law. Law enforcement has tough-as-nails methods at its disposal. It could subpoena, audit, intercept, sue, et cetera. The downside is those methods come with oversight and transparency requirements. [1] https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en
  - thinkmassive 10y ago
    I think you misinterpreted what matt4077 said. Most "hacking attempts and similar" are illegal. Tor is often (nobody said always) used in attacks, so the IPs of most exit nodes show up during attacks, which requires future users coming from those same exit nodes to solve the captcha. Cloudflare makes these decisions based on data, not on interpreting the law.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > Cloudflare makes these decisions based on data, not on interpreting the law As they are entitled to do. Uber saw damaging activity coming from burner phones. They blocked and/or modified the related services. If the investigators had identified themselves to Uber and then Uber did this, that might be different (though law enforcement is not, for good reasons, a protected class). The investigators chose a quieter path and Uber reacted accordingly.
  - pokemon-trainer 10y ago
    You are in Libertarian La-La Land to call what Uber did "treating users differently based on its interests and its interpretation of the law". As Volkswagen discovered, in the United States this is called "criminal conspiracy" and "obstruction of justice."
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > As Volkswagen discovered Night and day. Volkswagen was falsifying data provided to the government at an identified testing facility. Uber is fuzzing data and refusing to provide services to certain customers who have not identified themselves as police, though may be*. A city official cannot demand entry to private property without a warrant. Furthermore, one can eject someone from your place of business--again, provided they don't have a warrant. To get a warrant, investigators need probable cause. There are good reasons we limit the power of those seeking probable cause.
      - matt4077 10y ago
FabHK 10y ago
To be fair, some people at Cloudflare were working on reducing these CAPTCHAs for Tor users, though not sure what the current status is. https://github.com/gtank/captcha-draft/blob/master/captcha-plugin-draft.txt https://github.com/gtank/captcha-draft/blob/master/captcha-p... https://lwn.net/Articles/702399/ https://lwn.net/Articles/702399/

SilasX 10y ago

The article says Uber's legal team approved it: >At least 50 to 60 people inside Uber knew about Greyball, and some had qualms about whether it was ethical or legal. Greyball was approved by Uber’s legal team, headed by Salle Yoo, the general counsel. I (though not a lawyer) assume their reasoning was: "It's legal to use public sources to identify possible law enforcement agents, it's legal to deny services to them. Seems legit."

ubernostrum 10y ago
Well, that's a bold legal strategy if true -- I wonder why Microsoft simply didn't put it in the Windows license agreement that government users couldn't sue them for antitrust violations! (Uber's real argument seems to be "it violates our terms of service for a government official to try to figure out if we're following the law")
- SilasX 10y ago
  That wouldn't work: a) exempting themselves from specific laws by EULA generally doesn't work, b) you can block specific people from a service and even police have to leave when told (barring further e.g. probable cause), but police are under no obligation to honor a general "no police" policy. It's legal, though, to kick someone off a service because you think they're a cop. (e.g. biker bars that kick people out on that basis)
ams6110 10y ago
Seems to imply that they knew they were breaking the law, which would also seem to constitute mens rea. IANAL.
rmc 10y ago
Just because the legal team approved it doesn't mean it is legal. Legal teams make mistakes all the time

zamalek 10y ago

Entrapment is also illegal.

chris_wot 10y ago
Sure, but is not entrapment. Firstly, Uber was definitely offering the service, so it's not like they tricked them into committing a crime. And the government hailing an Uber ride doesn't meet the objective test that forces a normal, law-abiding citizen to commit a crime.