5 ms·

I agree. The article seems to point to Greyball as proof that Uber is being shady. Greyball is just the tool they used to keep from getting caught. The shady

I agree. The article seems to point to Greyball as proof that Uber is being shady. Greyball is just the tool they used to keep from getting caught. The shady part is that they operate in cities were they aren't welcome (by city officials at least, customers and drivers seemed to welcome them with open arms). If Uber operating in Portland is a night burglar, Greyball is his dark clothes and mask.

Trombone12 10y ago
I think developing infrastructure with the express goal of evading law enforcement* _is_ very shady, and then proof that they did just that is indeed proof that Uber is shady. I agree that there are other reasons beyond their dedicated law-avoidance infrastructure to consider Uber a shady company, but this leak alone is certainly enough _proof_ to label them as shady. * even if it is simply by adapting pre existing infrastructure created for a benign purpose
joe_the_user 10y ago
Evading the government ability to regulator you through deception is illegal - generally more illegal than whatever it is you're covering up. Government have to work that way. If lying to and evading regulation wasn't illegal, no regulation at all would be possible.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  I think it's pretty noble, let's not forget that while people seem to detest Uber, the gov't has a much more terrible track record
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Greyball is just the tool they used to keep from getting caught Using a tool to avoid getting caught is, itself, evidence that one is aware of the impropriety of the action thereby protected. Many view this kind of awareness as increasing the shadiness of the underlying action.
- rebuilder 10y ago
  Isn't this a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No, because it's not the tool alone it's the shady act without the tool vs. the shady act with the tool. (And it mostly only applies to acts that, while perceived as shady, wouldn't be perceived as outright evil on their own -- no one thinks that something that is unquestionably murder on its own is more evil because you tried to conceal it [0], but if you are taking your co-workers' food out of the fridge, the idea that it wasn't intentional wrongdoing is harder to maintain when you're also caught stashing the wrappers in someone else's trash.) [0] "No one" is a dramatic exaggeration, of course, and this assumes that the acts done in concealment aren't evil on their own, etc., etc.
  - evgen 10y ago
    No, a bit closer to 'mens rea' with regards to conspiracy.
  - takeda 10y ago
    First, there's a huge difference to blocking access to everyone, and perhaps just allowing access to selected few vs allowing access for everyone and blocking access to few that could penalize you for doing it. Second, privacy has nothing to do with it, this is not an information we talking about, but a service. A bit like dealing weed/prostitution/etc and actively looking if there isn't any cop around.
lowbloodsugar 10y ago
Dark clothes and a mask have other purposes. And they're passive. This is more like active radar jamming: it sends deliberately false information to government officials, on purpose. Radar jamming is illegal in most states.

Trombone12 10y ago

I think developing infrastructure with the express goal of evading law enforcement* _is_ very shady, and then proof that they did just that is indeed proof that Uber is shady. I agree that there are other reasons beyond their dedicated law-avoidance infrastructure to consider Uber a shady company, but this leak alone is certainly enough _proof_ to label them as shady. * even if it is simply by adapting pre existing infrastructure created for a benign purpose

joe_the_user 10y ago

Evading the government ability to regulator you through deception is illegal - generally more illegal than whatever it is you're covering up. Government have to work that way. If lying to and evading regulation wasn't illegal, no regulation at all would be possible.

vonklaus 10y ago
I think it's pretty noble, let's not forget that while people seem to detest Uber, the gov't has a much more terrible track record

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Greyball is just the tool they used to keep from getting caught Using a tool to avoid getting caught is, itself, evidence that one is aware of the impropriety of the action thereby protected. Many view this kind of awareness as increasing the shadiness of the underlying action.

rebuilder 10y ago
Isn't this a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, because it's not the tool alone it's the shady act without the tool vs. the shady act with the tool. (And it mostly only applies to acts that, while perceived as shady, wouldn't be perceived as outright evil on their own -- no one thinks that something that is unquestionably murder on its own is more evil because you tried to conceal it [0], but if you are taking your co-workers' food out of the fridge, the idea that it wasn't intentional wrongdoing is harder to maintain when you're also caught stashing the wrappers in someone else's trash.) [0] "No one" is a dramatic exaggeration, of course, and this assumes that the acts done in concealment aren't evil on their own, etc., etc.
- evgen 10y ago
  No, a bit closer to 'mens rea' with regards to conspiracy.
- takeda 10y ago
  First, there's a huge difference to blocking access to everyone, and perhaps just allowing access to selected few vs allowing access for everyone and blocking access to few that could penalize you for doing it. Second, privacy has nothing to do with it, this is not an information we talking about, but a service. A bit like dealing weed/prostitution/etc and actively looking if there isn't any cop around.

lowbloodsugar 10y ago

Dark clothes and a mask have other purposes. And they're passive. This is more like active radar jamming: it sends deliberately false information to government officials, on purpose. Radar jamming is illegal in most states.