5 ms·

Many items on that list aren't actually bad things, they're just described using language with negative connotations. For example >Uber breaks laws all around

Many items on that list aren't actually bad things, they're just described using language with negative connotations. For example >Uber breaks laws all around the world to enrich itself, including allegedly trying to deceive government officials across the world.[4] Detecting malicious users and protecting drivers by shadowbanning malicious users is neither illegal nor wrong. Uber has no legal nor moral obligation to help the governments entrap its drivers, or perform sting operations. [1] > It refuses to treat its drivers as true employees, even though legally they are considered such in many jurisdictions, and only complies when faced with court orders.[6][20] Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity. Treating uber drivers as full time employees hurts both the drivers and the company (why do you think uber driver pay got lower the more 'benefits' uber is required to provide them?). People shitting on uber always seem to ignore how much public utility it provides in every town it enters. I remember ~10 years ago when I was in Warsaw, coming back from a new years eve party, and I had to walk ~4 hours to get back home because there was no night public transport in that area, and no taxies were available at all. I was in wasaw again 2 years ago, and in the meantime uber has moved in. Getting a drive back on NYE was trivial - maybe we had to wait 20 minutes, and pay ~4 times more than a taxi would have been (but of course there were no taxis available); but split 4 ways it was still a great deal. There's a reason people choose to use uber; and there's a reason people choose to be uber drivers. And yes, it sucks to be a taxi driver who has bought his way into a monopoly by buying a permit, and now cannot recoup the cost that easily. I wish there was a way to compensate them at a cost of the people who benefited from bringing in license requirements in the first place. But I don't see one, and in the end I believe it's more important to dismantle the broken system. [1] http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/03/greyball-uber-app/ http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/03/greyball-uber-app/

ivraatiems 10y ago
> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity. Uber is breaking the law in these jurisdictions. That's what the court orders are for. Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" on the basis of not liking the law?
- Anderkent 10y ago
  > Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" Yep, that's called civil disobedience. As long as they pay the fines, I don't think it's wrong to break a bad law.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    Do you believe, then, that Uber breaks these laws as a form of protest, rather than because they want to maximie profit and eating the fines won't hurt their bottom line? What evidence do you have to support that belief, if so?
    - Anderkent 10y ago
      I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion. And if the fines for breaking the law aren't hurting their bottom line, it's a win-win - presumably the fines are calculated to more than offset any public harm done. When you hear a company break an actually meaningful law, the outrage isn't "X is breaking the law!", it's "X is doing <bad thing>". And yes, some of the outrage about uber does take the shape of the latter, and some of it is actually bad. But a lot of criticism is "Uber is breaking <law X> in <country Y>", and you'd only say that if the law in question is actually ridiculous.
      - ivraatiems 10y ago
        You didn't really answer my question, but I think the answer can be inferred: A law Uber finds unuseful is any law that costs them money. Why do you trust Uber with this power? Why would you trust _any_ corporation with this kind of power? They are not and will never be your ally. They are only out for themselves. Laws at least are meant to apply to everyone. You may agree with their individual decisions, or you may be against the individual laws they choose to violate, but the overall idea of "it's OK for them to break the laws I agree are bad" doesn't work when they start breaking ones you _don't_ agree are bad. You cannot and should not give them that kind of trust.
smacktoward 10y ago
> Uber has no legal nor moral obligation to help the governments entrap its drivers, or perform sting operations. Uber does, however, have obligations to obey the law. Part of which would include not using technology to hide law-breaking actions from local law enforcement.
- Anderkent 10y ago
  > Part of which would include not using technology to hide law-breaking actions from local law enforcement. I very much doubt there's a legal clause specifying that uber has to provide service to undercover agents. If there was, I expect uber's legal department would not allow that program to go through.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    If you're lying to a government agency, that's almost certainly breaking some law. I suspect that Illinois's §31-4 applies here (assuming this were in Illinois): (a) A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts: (1) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information (I'm not sure if the "prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense" would apply case, but I'm not about to try traipsing through Illinois law decisions to find precedence).
    - Anderkent 10y ago
      They didn't lie in response to any official requests by the agency; they lied to incognito agents.
      - evgen 10y ago
        If they knew that these agents were investigating possible mis-behavior or law-breaking on the part of Uber then Uber (and the people who coded up this cute little internal service) are now involved in a conspiracy. The neat thing about conspiracy is that it is much easier to prove/convict than the actual criminal activity.
matt4077 10y ago
> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. There's an established process for that. And on the empirical level, it's not enough to show that customers and drivers are choosing to do business with Uber. If that were the standard, not single law protecting workers, customers, or third parties would be necessary. Also, 'jurisdiction' means something different than you think,
- Anderkent 10y ago
  > Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break. > There's an established process for that. And the process pretty much always starts with people deciding to disobey the law, and the law being adjusted later on to match public expectations. > Also, 'jurisdiction' means something different than you think, Yes, I meant to type regulation, ~corrected~ (ETA: not corrected because I can't edit anymore) with thanks
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    > Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break. Corporations are not people. And even if we're only talking about Kalanick, while one may choose what laws to break or not, that doesn't exclude one from prosecution for laws one has broken. You don't get to pick and choose like that. Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way.
    - Anderkent 10y ago
      > Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way. No, I never said that? Obviously when you break a law you should be prepared to face the consequences for breaking that law, as stated in the law. That's the baseline of paying fines. (And then possibly contesting the fines in court or building a public case for changing the law based on being fined for something really silly). What is not necessarily good is the additional public punishment for breaking a law; whether in form of bad PR, people boycotting them, protests, etc. That outrage should not be encouraged based on legality of actions, but only based on their morality.

ivraatiems 10y ago

> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity. Uber is breaking the law in these jurisdictions. That's what the court orders are for. Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" on the basis of not liking the law?

Anderkent 10y ago
> Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" Yep, that's called civil disobedience. As long as they pay the fines, I don't think it's wrong to break a bad law.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  Do you believe, then, that Uber breaks these laws as a form of protest, rather than because they want to maximie profit and eating the fines won't hurt their bottom line? What evidence do you have to support that belief, if so?
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion. And if the fines for breaking the law aren't hurting their bottom line, it's a win-win - presumably the fines are calculated to more than offset any public harm done. When you hear a company break an actually meaningful law, the outrage isn't "X is breaking the law!", it's "X is doing <bad thing>". And yes, some of the outrage about uber does take the shape of the latter, and some of it is actually bad. But a lot of criticism is "Uber is breaking <law X> in <country Y>", and you'd only say that if the law in question is actually ridiculous.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      You didn't really answer my question, but I think the answer can be inferred: A law Uber finds unuseful is any law that costs them money. Why do you trust Uber with this power? Why would you trust _any_ corporation with this kind of power? They are not and will never be your ally. They are only out for themselves. Laws at least are meant to apply to everyone. You may agree with their individual decisions, or you may be against the individual laws they choose to violate, but the overall idea of "it's OK for them to break the laws I agree are bad" doesn't work when they start breaking ones you _don't_ agree are bad. You cannot and should not give them that kind of trust.

smacktoward 10y ago

> Uber has no legal nor moral obligation to help the governments entrap its drivers, or perform sting operations. Uber does, however, have obligations to obey the law. Part of which would include not using technology to hide law-breaking actions from local law enforcement.

Anderkent 10y ago
> Part of which would include not using technology to hide law-breaking actions from local law enforcement. I very much doubt there's a legal clause specifying that uber has to provide service to undercover agents. If there was, I expect uber's legal department would not allow that program to go through.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  If you're lying to a government agency, that's almost certainly breaking some law. I suspect that Illinois's §31-4 applies here (assuming this were in Illinois): (a) A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts: (1) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information (I'm not sure if the "prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense" would apply case, but I'm not about to try traipsing through Illinois law decisions to find precedence).
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    They didn't lie in response to any official requests by the agency; they lied to incognito agents.
    - evgen 10y ago
      If they knew that these agents were investigating possible mis-behavior or law-breaking on the part of Uber then Uber (and the people who coded up this cute little internal service) are now involved in a conspiracy. The neat thing about conspiracy is that it is much easier to prove/convict than the actual criminal activity.

matt4077 10y ago

> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. There's an established process for that. And on the empirical level, it's not enough to show that customers and drivers are choosing to do business with Uber. If that were the standard, not single law protecting workers, customers, or third parties would be necessary. Also, 'jurisdiction' means something different than you think,

Anderkent 10y ago
> Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break. > There's an established process for that. And the process pretty much always starts with people deciding to disobey the law, and the law being adjusted later on to match public expectations. > Also, 'jurisdiction' means something different than you think, Yes, I meant to type regulation, ~corrected~ (ETA: not corrected because I can't edit anymore) with thanks
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  > Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break. Corporations are not people. And even if we're only talking about Kalanick, while one may choose what laws to break or not, that doesn't exclude one from prosecution for laws one has broken. You don't get to pick and choose like that. Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way.
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    > Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way. No, I never said that? Obviously when you break a law you should be prepared to face the consequences for breaking that law, as stated in the law. That's the baseline of paying fines. (And then possibly contesting the fines in court or building a public case for changing the law based on being fined for something really silly). What is not necessarily good is the additional public punishment for breaking a law; whether in form of bad PR, people boycotting them, protests, etc. That outrage should not be encouraged based on legality of actions, but only based on their morality.