5 ms·

The taking of 14,000 documents is actually assumed to be true currently for the purposes of this case. That's because Uber is in no position to deny it, only Le

The taking of 14,000 documents is actually assumed to be true currently for the purposes of this case. That's because Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. Of course, the documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. Simply saying "I didn't do that" would be insufficient.

komali2 10y ago
> Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. >documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. pretty apparently Come on man, you know what angle I'll go for here. Why are you letting that slip? The documentation aka evidence hasn't been seen yet because this case hasn't gone to court. None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light. I'm happy to hop on the "Uber is evil" train after the case, but it is painful to watch the normally quite rational people on HN fall for such a typical fallacy of justice.
- nl 10y ago
  >> Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. > So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. That's how the 5th amendment works. It gives you the right to avoid self-incrimination, but if you invoke that right and there is other evidence against you then you'd better have some other way of refuting that evidence.
  - life_on_mars 10y ago
    Has this other evidence even been presented yet? edit: given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      I downvoted you because–considering your strong opinions–it seems unlikely that this is a question asked in good faith. And even if, it is answered both in the article, as well as pretty much implied in the headline. GOOG-ACCOUNTING-REF:3FX/ASTRO/15/TURFWAR/PROJECTSOROS
      - life_on_mars 10y ago
        The document in question was found on the personal laptop of a different former Waymo engineer. This neither supports nor refutes the original evidence Google claims to have regarding 14,000 files they claim that Lewandowsky downloaded. They should have to present that evidence publicly first before discovery, otherwise this looks like just a fishing expedition. In 2017, it's not uncommon to do work on your personal machine and handle personal issues on your work machine. In 2017, interfaces encourage archiving documents instead of deleting them, so it's not uncommon for people to still have documents they've long since forgotten about. I wouldn't be surprised if searches of the personal machines of most people in the world would turn up documents that belonged to that person's previous employers. Here's an experiment: If you acquired your current personal laptop prior to leaving one or more past employers, try searching your personal machine and personal email for documents or information that belong to any of your former employers. I suspect that many people would find at least one document showing up accidentally.
    - nl 10y ago
      Has this other evidence even been presented yet? Yes it has - or at least enough that the judge found it compelling. I'd speculate it was something like download logs or something. From the reporting of the story I've read there doesn't seem to be anyone arguing that Lewandowsky didn't access the files. The question seems to be about if they made it to Uber. I any case I don't think that is relevant to the question regrading the 5th amendment, and I suspect that is why you are being downvoted. Lewandowsky and Uber's interests don't align here. It's pretty easy to see a scenario where Uber loses this case and then sues Lewandowsky. Of course Uber wants Lewandowsky to give up his rights here. Lewandowsky has some pretty complex trade-offs to consider. given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute. I'm not sure how you figure that. I'd imagine it would be Uber employee's downvoting you, since your question really shows the big problems Uber is facing.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation You're missing the point. The fifth just says that you can't have your silence held against you. Once you answer the question by saying anything at all, then the answers can be used against you, especially if you're lying. I believe he's under oath in these proceedings. > None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light. No, we're talking about the judge's statements, somebody who has seen all the evidence and is speaking as a professional jurist. And unlike the rest of the Uber accusations, he has gone on record with these statements after seeing some fairly strong documented evidence. The fact that we haven't seen it yet is immaterial.
- mandevil 10y ago
  >So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking the 5th Amendment could not be used against him, but in civil case, it most definitely can be used against you.
  - life_on_mars 10y ago
    It's reasonable for it to be used against Mr Lewandowsky, but is it reasonable to use it against his employer? Many people have their opinion on whether Uber is evil or not, but any employer that forces you to give up a right that Constitution affords you if you're potentially facing criminal charges sounds evil to me. If the court wants him to testify in a civil case instead of asserting his 5th amendment right, they should find a way to guarantee immunity or that he won't face criminal charges. OJ Simpson pleaded the 5th too and then later took the stand because the criminal case was litigated before the civil case.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      This is addressed plenty of times in this thread. Futher, specific to your question: the court doesn't care one way or another. They'll take his testimony if he wants to give it, and they'll have it even easier to make a decision without. A civil court is also unlikely to be in a position to grant any immunity. Neither google nor the court care about the conflicts of interest on the defendants' side. I'd even agree with you that at-will employment is evil, and legitimately pleading the 5th shouldn't be enough to fire someone. But specifically in this case, Lewandowsky could be fired even if he were employed by the French government – he could then sue himself, and the findings of the google/uber trial would probably determine his claim of wrongful dismissal.
- lovich 10y ago
  It's a civil case, not criminal. You only need a perponderance of evidence and if you invoke the 5th it's perfectly legal to make an adverse inference against you. How would lawsuits work if that wasn't possible? Civil lawyers aren't able to use as many powers in evidence gathering as prosecutors. If uber's current tactic was allowed then every company would hire a designated employee who would have a paper trail of all the company's misdoings lead to him. That employee then pleads the fifth, the company does a shrug, and that's the end of the lawsuit
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. No, he could give up his 5th amendment right to save Uber money. This is a civil proceeding not a criminal one.
life_on_mars 10y ago
They claim that they knew this happened more than a year ago. The veracity of their logs, or at the very least the chain of custody of those logs, should seriously be called into question at this point. They should have litigated against Mr. Lewandowsky after he founded Otto using documents they claim to know he stole more than a year ago.

komali2 10y ago

> Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. >documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. pretty apparently Come on man, you know what angle I'll go for here. Why are you letting that slip? The documentation aka evidence hasn't been seen yet because this case hasn't gone to court. None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light. I'm happy to hop on the "Uber is evil" train after the case, but it is painful to watch the normally quite rational people on HN fall for such a typical fallacy of justice.

nl 10y ago
>> Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. > So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. That's how the 5th amendment works. It gives you the right to avoid self-incrimination, but if you invoke that right and there is other evidence against you then you'd better have some other way of refuting that evidence.
- life_on_mars 10y ago
  Has this other evidence even been presented yet? edit: given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I downvoted you because–considering your strong opinions–it seems unlikely that this is a question asked in good faith. And even if, it is answered both in the article, as well as pretty much implied in the headline. GOOG-ACCOUNTING-REF:3FX/ASTRO/15/TURFWAR/PROJECTSOROS
    - life_on_mars 10y ago
      The document in question was found on the personal laptop of a different former Waymo engineer. This neither supports nor refutes the original evidence Google claims to have regarding 14,000 files they claim that Lewandowsky downloaded. They should have to present that evidence publicly first before discovery, otherwise this looks like just a fishing expedition. In 2017, it's not uncommon to do work on your personal machine and handle personal issues on your work machine. In 2017, interfaces encourage archiving documents instead of deleting them, so it's not uncommon for people to still have documents they've long since forgotten about. I wouldn't be surprised if searches of the personal machines of most people in the world would turn up documents that belonged to that person's previous employers. Here's an experiment: If you acquired your current personal laptop prior to leaving one or more past employers, try searching your personal machine and personal email for documents or information that belong to any of your former employers. I suspect that many people would find at least one document showing up accidentally.
  - nl 10y ago
    Has this other evidence even been presented yet? Yes it has - or at least enough that the judge found it compelling. I'd speculate it was something like download logs or something. From the reporting of the story I've read there doesn't seem to be anyone arguing that Lewandowsky didn't access the files. The question seems to be about if they made it to Uber. I any case I don't think that is relevant to the question regrading the 5th amendment, and I suspect that is why you are being downvoted. Lewandowsky and Uber's interests don't align here. It's pretty easy to see a scenario where Uber loses this case and then sues Lewandowsky. Of course Uber wants Lewandowsky to give up his rights here. Lewandowsky has some pretty complex trade-offs to consider. given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute. I'm not sure how you figure that. I'd imagine it would be Uber employee's downvoting you, since your question really shows the big problems Uber is facing.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation You're missing the point. The fifth just says that you can't have your silence held against you. Once you answer the question by saying anything at all, then the answers can be used against you, especially if you're lying. I believe he's under oath in these proceedings. > None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light. No, we're talking about the judge's statements, somebody who has seen all the evidence and is speaking as a professional jurist. And unlike the rest of the Uber accusations, he has gone on record with these statements after seeing some fairly strong documented evidence. The fact that we haven't seen it yet is immaterial.
mandevil 10y ago
>So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking the 5th Amendment could not be used against him, but in civil case, it most definitely can be used against you.
- life_on_mars 10y ago
  It's reasonable for it to be used against Mr Lewandowsky, but is it reasonable to use it against his employer? Many people have their opinion on whether Uber is evil or not, but any employer that forces you to give up a right that Constitution affords you if you're potentially facing criminal charges sounds evil to me. If the court wants him to testify in a civil case instead of asserting his 5th amendment right, they should find a way to guarantee immunity or that he won't face criminal charges. OJ Simpson pleaded the 5th too and then later took the stand because the criminal case was litigated before the civil case.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    This is addressed plenty of times in this thread. Futher, specific to your question: the court doesn't care one way or another. They'll take his testimony if he wants to give it, and they'll have it even easier to make a decision without. A civil court is also unlikely to be in a position to grant any immunity. Neither google nor the court care about the conflicts of interest on the defendants' side. I'd even agree with you that at-will employment is evil, and legitimately pleading the 5th shouldn't be enough to fire someone. But specifically in this case, Lewandowsky could be fired even if he were employed by the French government – he could then sue himself, and the findings of the google/uber trial would probably determine his claim of wrongful dismissal.
lovich 10y ago
It's a civil case, not criminal. You only need a perponderance of evidence and if you invoke the 5th it's perfectly legal to make an adverse inference against you. How would lawsuits work if that wasn't possible? Civil lawyers aren't able to use as many powers in evidence gathering as prosecutors. If uber's current tactic was allowed then every company would hire a designated employee who would have a paper trail of all the company's misdoings lead to him. That employee then pleads the fifth, the company does a shrug, and that's the end of the lawsuit
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. No, he could give up his 5th amendment right to save Uber money. This is a civil proceeding not a criminal one.

life_on_mars 10y ago

They claim that they knew this happened more than a year ago. The veracity of their logs, or at the very least the chain of custody of those logs, should seriously be called into question at this point. They should have litigated against Mr. Lewandowsky after he founded Otto using documents they claim to know he stole more than a year ago.