13 ms·

So, no one was really able to answer my question last thread. In fact, I mostly got snarky condescending replies. I've stopped caring about such things though,

So, no one was really able to answer my question last thread. In fact, I mostly got snarky condescending replies. I've stopped caring about such things though, so hopefully good-faith questions are still welcome: What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? What is wrong with using a competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them? Not only did it not harm Lyft drivers, but it actually aided them: Several of them were offered hundreds of dollars by Uber to switch companies. Most drivers are trying to make end's meet, and from speaking directly with drivers, this was seen as a universally positive thing. "I was like, yes! Where do I sign? $400 bucks is amazing. Too bad my car was too old for Uber." Though I guess if Mr. Gonzales wins his lawsuit, it will give the answer to these questions and more.

jlarocco 10y ago
> What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? Hard to believe this is a serious question, but the answer is that it's an invasion of privacy. "Tracking" is a polite way to put it, but if I'm reading it correctly, Uber is basically stalking them. Just when I think Uber can't be any sleazier, they find a way.
throwaway4job 10y ago
I'll offer a good faith answer, even though I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss it as snarky condescension. Point 1: Lyft's API comes with a contractual agreement regarding acceptable usage. Uber deliberately breached that agreement. This is a breach of property rights. Point 2: They breached Lyft's property rights with the intent of stalking Lyft drivers, and of harming Lyft as an organization. This shows the breach of property rights was not neutral or positive, but rather was an activity meant to harm the property owner, and to reduce the competitive landscape. Point 3: It was a clear violation of law. I include this last because law only loosely correlates with morality; however law draws the lines on the playing field and it is worth explicitly noting that Uber arranged for its employees to break federal law, repeatedly, for Uber's benefit. If you don't think property rights are important, go talk with a Libertarian.
- an_account 10y ago
  Which laws did Uber break? You said it was a "clear" violation, but it seems like there's a lot of debate. I don't know enough either way, so I'd like to hear your explanation.
OedipusRex 10y ago
"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition"
- tyingq 10y ago
  For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/
  - posguy 10y ago
    Violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally. Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing. I wish that weren't the case though, we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
- spikels 10y ago
  Were the Lyft drivers personally identifiable? Or did they just find the location of anonomized drivers?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Personally identifiable using unique Lyft identifiers.
    - OedipusRex 10y ago
      Which includes what?
EpicEng 10y ago
Well, per the plaintiff(s): >The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition. It's up to a jury to decide whether or not that's the case here.
revelation 10y ago
Seems like a very obvious CFAA violation. "Unauthorized" in that context means whatever the API provider and a gullible prosecutor want it to mean.
- posguy 10y ago
  Yea, violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is very risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally. Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing.
clishem 10y ago
If you read this article (https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/) you'll find it goes much futher then just accessing Lyft's public API. They created fake customer accounts, spoofed their locations and even linked the data about drivers they got from this to their own drivers. So what's wrong with this? To quote the article, possibly: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act".
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  "and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" This I'm most interested in, as the DoJ has frequently used the hammer against those who violate the act. EDIT: Would love to get your opinion rayiner if you read this comment on what the odds are the DoJ prosecutes for this.
  - nols 10y ago
    The CFAA is absurdly broadly worded, so much so that it's extremely easy to wield against people accused of violating it. The DoJ uses it as their hammer, if they targeted everyone who violated it the jails would be overflowing.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Yes, my understanding is that criminal prosecutions under the CFAA are relatively rare. It's primarily wielded in civil cases. It seems very unlikely that Kalanick et al would be brought up on criminal charges for this. I'm not a lawyer.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        CFAA criminal charges (and the associated sentencing guidelines) were famously used as leverage against Aaron Swartz. https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa "Even first-time offenses for accessing a protected computer without sufficient "authorization" can be punishable by up to five years in prison each (ten years for repeat offenses), plus fines. Violations of other parts of the CFAA are punishable by up to ten years, 20 years, and even life in prison. The excessive penalties were a key factor in the government's case against Aaron Swartz, where eleven out of thirteen alleged crimes were CFAA offenses, some of which were "unauthorized" access claims." I doubt Uber had authorization to use Lyft's API in the manner they did.
Analemma_ 10y ago
If you drive for Uber, you presumably agreed to some kind of contract where it's OK for them to track your every move. Drivers who only work for Lyft made no such agreement with Uber. That's probably what this will hinge on.
- tyingq 10y ago
  I don't know. From the earlier article: "Hell originated after Uber created fake rider accounts on Lyft and used software to trick Lyft’s system into thinking those riders were in certain locations. This allowed Uber to see the eight closest available Lyft drivers to each fake rider." That's probably going to cost them one way or the other. That's actively interfering with both Lyft and the driver. IANAL, but that sounds a lot like "tortious interference" and maybe more.
- venture_lol 10y ago
  Nope. I doubt the drivers have a case. I mean, the public can see them, so there is no expectation of privacy whatsoever. Lyft, itself, on the other hand, has a much better case against Uber
Chaebixi 10y ago
I would prefer businesses compete on the services they provide to their customers, not on how effectively they can sneakily torpedo their competitors (by, in this case, trying to deny them their suppliers).
- venture_lol 10y ago
  You can make a good argument that's exactly what Uber did. They tried to obtain field data to make competitive decision. Market intelligence, market research, competitive analysis, swot, opposition research, take place everyday. The way they went about it does seem to have put them in hot water. Question is did they cross a line with serious legal and business (as in cost) ramifications?
  - alain94040 10y ago
    You are definitely crossing a line when you provide burner phones to sabotage your competition. This article[1] on Verge even has screenshots of the app that Uber used internally to generate phone numbers that Lyft couldn't trace and that Uber people could use to create fake Lyft accounts. If you are part of the development team that wrote that internal app, you seriously miss a moral compass. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...
leggomylibro 10y ago
It's probably an unauthorized use of the API; Lyft's API is not public, and requires a separate agreement to use. https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-terms-of-use https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-term... One section I'd draw particular attention to reads, "You Will Not: a. use the Platform or Service in any manner that is competitive to Lyft or the Service, including in connection with any application, website or other product or service that also includes, features, endorses, or otherwise supports in any way a third party that provides services competitive to Lyft’s products and services, in our sole discretion; ..." So if Uber profited from that misuse, why wouldn't Lyft have a case?
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Why is that clause contrary to public policy? If I provide information to my customers, I have to provide the same information directly to my competitor? Why does that make the world better?
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      It makes the world better by not attempting to draw a legal distinction based on somebody's internal motives. In this particular case, it makes the world better by recognizing that "prohibiting competition" is not a worthwhile goal for the state to promote. We recently had another spurt of articles praising California's policy of not enforcing noncompetes as to employees. Why are noncompetes for customers a better idea?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - 10y ago
venture_lol 10y ago
Lyft should have a good case. A few years ago, there was case where one company had their employees calling the support line of another company (think it was the cable industry) to tie up support and resources that were meant for real customers.
bootload 10y ago
"What is wrong with using a competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them?" Legal terms of service.
logicallee 10y ago
I will answer you simply and I hope concisely. Most industries have an incredibly high barrier to entry: if you woke up tomorrow wanting to sell heavy farm equipment, you felt this is what you were on this planet to do, the chances that you would be selling heavy farm equipment 12 months later is less than 0.0005%. As such under natural conditions there are few competitors in most industries. This is natural. When incumbents apply even a modicium of "stop competitors" sauce, what had been "nearly impossible" can become "impossible." One of many, many examples of this would be dropping prices until new competitors are out of business. For a lot of further examples that might expand your thinking but which don't for the most part apply to Uber, look up Monopoly behaviors. But in short, with very good reason, what modern society has determined is that with regard to raising barriers of entry against potential competitors, the only fair thing to do is to completely ignore them. Responding to them even minimally, such as dropping your prices until they're dead, is not considered in the interests of society over the long term. For similar (though not exactly the same) reasons, it is considered standard practice not to have a single strategic meeting with all of the direct competitors in the room, such as regarding pricing or other strategic aspects. Again, what society has determined is that competitors need to, largely, ignore each other, and operate with respect to the market as though their competition did not exist. I'm no professor, but since your question seems in earnest, after Googling the concepts I've mentioned please let me know if you are still of the same opinion as when you wrote your comment.
Mz 10y ago
My opinion: This is not about the drivers. They were engaging in activity intended to be actively hostile to a competitor. That is why this is wrong. It is one thing to build a competitive business. It is another to try to actively undermine the competition, and not because your service is simply better. I get rather tired of a world in which "Well, technically, it didn't break any existing rules, so it should be okay, right?" gets used to justify all kinds of ugly stuff. We live in a world that our existing laws were not designed to account for because it hadn't been invented yet, nor even imagined. It is almost like saying "Well, if we invented magic and used magic to murder people, hey, we should be allowed to get away with murder because our current laws don't have clauses that address the use of magic, amirite??!!" Uh, no. You are not right. And I hope we will develop laws and rules that spell out that you are not right.
- sillysaurus3 10y ago
  Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me. My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we call out-of-the-box thinking? It seems like there's a fine line between being clever and being morally bankrupt. Clever hack: Using a language feature in a way it wasn't intended. Morally bankrupt: Using a competitor's API in a way it wasn't intended. So it was really hard to work through these concerns, or even begin to address them without talking publicly about it. But bringing it up publicly seems to entail people talking down to you (see the replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189381 in this thread). Just an interesting situation.
  - TheCondor 10y ago
    There isnt that fine of a line. That's the moral hazard, are you building something or are you working to destroy something. Frame it as the VW firmware, they didn't cheat emissions because one or two guys did some late night hackers and put some extra code in to git, there was an orchestrated effort where a lot of people thought "out side the box" and rationalized their morals. Would it be more moral to report the API use to Lyft? Those folks are just trying to earn a living too, right? Would lent you feel just as clever reporting their vulnerability to them?
killin_dan 10y ago
Its against the competitive spirit of business. Like if I'm trying to run the best taxi service and someone runs a better one, that's fine, but if someone is stalking my driver's and spying on them, that's bullshit. It's cheating. Uber is capable of running the best service on a merit basis. Cheating this way is just childish and should be corrected immediately imo.
Spooky23 10y ago
Nothing at all. We should all aspire to such bold visionary behavior.
- beedogs 10y ago
  I really hope that's sarcasm, but I can't tell anymore. There are people all over HN who really think this kind of disgusting behavior is acceptable.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    It is! :)
ziikutv 10y ago
I think the main problem is.. No Consent. Consent it the cornerstone of all things. P.S: Literally paraphrasing my Engineering Professional Practice course. An exam of which I just crushed!
anigbrowl 10y ago
Consider the difference between a race and a boxing match. They're both sports but if you sign up for one and find yourself involved in the other you'd be unhappy. In law this sort of things is referred to as 'tortious interference'; Uber isn't running their own business here, but trying to fuck up Lyft's If they want to play that game, then why shouldn't Lyft send spies to their offices and attempt o steal Uber's corporate info? This sort of no-holds-barred capitalism has been tried before and people didn't like it.
justicezyx 10y ago
Sure, let's do whatever we can to sabotage, because it's just the nature of competition...
suneilp 10y ago
According to some comments, the api isn't even public. This behavior is quite thuggish of a digital sorts. I once heard from an Uber driver that the CEOs of the two companies hated each other and have gone crazy competing against each other. Either it's over a woman or they're really messed up in the head. Regardless, this is very disappointing.
beedogs 10y ago
HN proves, in the comments of nearly every story about Uber, that there's nothing wrong with any of the shitty things this company does to its competitors or customers. Straight-up stealing code from Google? I've seen it justified here. Stalking people? That's okay, too. Screwing over competitors with software like this? Totally fine! Uber can do no wrong on HN. It disgusts me, but I'll be satisfied when they've been destroyed through one or more of the myriad gigantic lawsuits they're fighting. The comments on that story ought to be amusing.
pyrale 10y ago
I'm going to repeat my previous answer to your previous question, as I posted it late and you probably didn't see it : Uber supposedly has no competition relation with drivers. Adding that drivers may choose to work both for Uber and Lyft, this gives Uber leverage against a category of population they have been known to abuse. The danger here is the combination of undue knowledge and a de-facto dependency relation in the hands of a known offender. In your example, you're saying Uber had to offer several hundreds of dollars for drivers to switch sides. However, nothing is said about how this spying contributed to this : maybe the offer could have been bigger. Maybe some drivers were precluded from receiving monetary deals because of it. etc.
SamBam 10y ago
I gather this is a good-faith question, but it's a little boggling to me how you can be asking it. One company secretly installed software on the phones of employees of its competitor, in order to track those individuals and perform corporate espionage on its competition, and you ask what's wrong with that? You say it should be ok because some of those employees were offered payouts to switch? Not only does that not remotely excuse the behavior described in my second paragraph, ask yourself: why is Uber engaging in these tactics against its competitor? It's definitely not to spur healthy growth and competition in the industry -- it's to help drive a competitor out of business and cement its monopoly. And if it becomes more of a monopoly... do you think that will be good for its employees in the long run?
andrewfromx 10y ago
I think u read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190719 it answers this question well. Even though the end result might have been good for Lyft Drivers, that's not the point. The point is this crossed a clear criminal line that we all want enforced for future cases like this. i.e. what if next time it's Pepsi Breaking into Coke etc etc and the group it benefits is different.
BearGoesChirp 10y ago
What's wrong with me offering a starving third world child the ability to be my full time house maid for $1 a day and room and board? Many of them would love the chance. Some will literally die from expose and lack of food and clean water. Yet it would be quite illegal for me to give them a chance to survive. I'm gone out the house 10 hours a day, sleep 8 hours, and have very few actual chores. They would only need to cook me a lunch to take to work, and do a little light cleaning. They could use the free time to jump online and learn from resources they would've never had access to. I'd even help them by getting them access to some skills appropriate help. There entire life would be massively improved, and once they feel ready to move back to their homeland and make their own living, I wouldn't stop them. Yet that isn't only illegal, if I tried to foster a child and treated them this way I would be considered a horrible human being. Weird, no? The main answer to this is that allowing this, while it may seem reasonable in a single case by case basis, caused massive social problems (child slavery lite) that justifies forbidding me from making an offer that could save the life of some child. The second and third order effects are too bad. (Or maybe they aren't and it would actually be better overall to allow it. It would be an interesting discussion either way.)

jlarocco 10y ago

> What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? Hard to believe this is a serious question, but the answer is that it's an invasion of privacy. "Tracking" is a polite way to put it, but if I'm reading it correctly, Uber is basically stalking them. Just when I think Uber can't be any sleazier, they find a way.

throwaway4job 10y ago

I'll offer a good faith answer, even though I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss it as snarky condescension. Point 1: Lyft's API comes with a contractual agreement regarding acceptable usage. Uber deliberately breached that agreement. This is a breach of property rights. Point 2: They breached Lyft's property rights with the intent of stalking Lyft drivers, and of harming Lyft as an organization. This shows the breach of property rights was not neutral or positive, but rather was an activity meant to harm the property owner, and to reduce the competitive landscape. Point 3: It was a clear violation of law. I include this last because law only loosely correlates with morality; however law draws the lines on the playing field and it is worth explicitly noting that Uber arranged for its employees to break federal law, repeatedly, for Uber's benefit. If you don't think property rights are important, go talk with a Libertarian.

an_account 10y ago
Which laws did Uber break? You said it was a "clear" violation, but it seems like there's a lot of debate. I don't know enough either way, so I'd like to hear your explanation.

OedipusRex 10y ago

"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition"

tyingq 10y ago
For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/
- posguy 10y ago
  Violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally. Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing. I wish that weren't the case though, we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
spikels 10y ago
Were the Lyft drivers personally identifiable? Or did they just find the location of anonomized drivers?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Personally identifiable using unique Lyft identifiers.
  - OedipusRex 10y ago
    Which includes what?

EpicEng 10y ago

Well, per the plaintiff(s): >The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition. It's up to a jury to decide whether or not that's the case here.

revelation 10y ago

Seems like a very obvious CFAA violation. "Unauthorized" in that context means whatever the API provider and a gullible prosecutor want it to mean.

posguy 10y ago
Yea, violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is very risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally. Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing.

clishem 10y ago

If you read this article (https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/) you'll find it goes much futher then just accessing Lyft's public API. They created fake customer accounts, spoofed their locations and even linked the data about drivers they got from this to their own drivers. So what's wrong with this? To quote the article, possibly: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act".

toomuchtodo 10y ago
"and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" This I'm most interested in, as the DoJ has frequently used the hammer against those who violate the act. EDIT: Would love to get your opinion rayiner if you read this comment on what the odds are the DoJ prosecutes for this.
- nols 10y ago
  The CFAA is absurdly broadly worded, so much so that it's extremely easy to wield against people accused of violating it. The DoJ uses it as their hammer, if they targeted everyone who violated it the jails would be overflowing.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Yes, my understanding is that criminal prosecutions under the CFAA are relatively rare. It's primarily wielded in civil cases. It seems very unlikely that Kalanick et al would be brought up on criminal charges for this. I'm not a lawyer.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      CFAA criminal charges (and the associated sentencing guidelines) were famously used as leverage against Aaron Swartz. https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa "Even first-time offenses for accessing a protected computer without sufficient "authorization" can be punishable by up to five years in prison each (ten years for repeat offenses), plus fines. Violations of other parts of the CFAA are punishable by up to ten years, 20 years, and even life in prison. The excessive penalties were a key factor in the government's case against Aaron Swartz, where eleven out of thirteen alleged crimes were CFAA offenses, some of which were "unauthorized" access claims." I doubt Uber had authorization to use Lyft's API in the manner they did.

Analemma_ 10y ago

If you drive for Uber, you presumably agreed to some kind of contract where it's OK for them to track your every move. Drivers who only work for Lyft made no such agreement with Uber. That's probably what this will hinge on.

tyingq 10y ago
I don't know. From the earlier article: "Hell originated after Uber created fake rider accounts on Lyft and used software to trick Lyft’s system into thinking those riders were in certain locations. This allowed Uber to see the eight closest available Lyft drivers to each fake rider." That's probably going to cost them one way or the other. That's actively interfering with both Lyft and the driver. IANAL, but that sounds a lot like "tortious interference" and maybe more.
venture_lol 10y ago
Nope. I doubt the drivers have a case. I mean, the public can see them, so there is no expectation of privacy whatsoever. Lyft, itself, on the other hand, has a much better case against Uber

Chaebixi 10y ago

I would prefer businesses compete on the services they provide to their customers, not on how effectively they can sneakily torpedo their competitors (by, in this case, trying to deny them their suppliers).

venture_lol 10y ago
You can make a good argument that's exactly what Uber did. They tried to obtain field data to make competitive decision. Market intelligence, market research, competitive analysis, swot, opposition research, take place everyday. The way they went about it does seem to have put them in hot water. Question is did they cross a line with serious legal and business (as in cost) ramifications?
- alain94040 10y ago
  You are definitely crossing a line when you provide burner phones to sabotage your competition. This article[1] on Verge even has screenshots of the app that Uber used internally to generate phone numbers that Lyft couldn't trace and that Uber people could use to create fake Lyft accounts. If you are part of the development team that wrote that internal app, you seriously miss a moral compass. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...

leggomylibro 10y ago

It's probably an unauthorized use of the API; Lyft's API is not public, and requires a separate agreement to use. https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-terms-of-use https://developer.lyft.com/docs/lyft-developer-platform-term... One section I'd draw particular attention to reads, "You Will Not: a. use the Platform or Service in any manner that is competitive to Lyft or the Service, including in connection with any application, website or other product or service that also includes, features, endorses, or otherwise supports in any way a third party that provides services competitive to Lyft’s products and services, in our sole discretion; ..." So if Uber profited from that misuse, why wouldn't Lyft have a case?

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Why is that clause contrary to public policy? If I provide information to my customers, I have to provide the same information directly to my competitor? Why does that make the world better?
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    It makes the world better by not attempting to draw a legal distinction based on somebody's internal motives. In this particular case, it makes the world better by recognizing that "prohibiting competition" is not a worthwhile goal for the state to promote. We recently had another spurt of articles praising California's policy of not enforcing noncompetes as to employees. Why are noncompetes for customers a better idea?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - 10y ago

venture_lol 10y ago

Lyft should have a good case. A few years ago, there was case where one company had their employees calling the support line of another company (think it was the cable industry) to tie up support and resources that were meant for real customers.

bootload 10y ago

"What is wrong with using a competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them?" Legal terms of service.

logicallee 10y ago

I will answer you simply and I hope concisely. Most industries have an incredibly high barrier to entry: if you woke up tomorrow wanting to sell heavy farm equipment, you felt this is what you were on this planet to do, the chances that you would be selling heavy farm equipment 12 months later is less than 0.0005%. As such under natural conditions there are few competitors in most industries. This is natural. When incumbents apply even a modicium of "stop competitors" sauce, what had been "nearly impossible" can become "impossible." One of many, many examples of this would be dropping prices until new competitors are out of business. For a lot of further examples that might expand your thinking but which don't for the most part apply to Uber, look up Monopoly behaviors. But in short, with very good reason, what modern society has determined is that with regard to raising barriers of entry against potential competitors, the only fair thing to do is to completely ignore them. Responding to them even minimally, such as dropping your prices until they're dead, is not considered in the interests of society over the long term. For similar (though not exactly the same) reasons, it is considered standard practice not to have a single strategic meeting with all of the direct competitors in the room, such as regarding pricing or other strategic aspects. Again, what society has determined is that competitors need to, largely, ignore each other, and operate with respect to the market as though their competition did not exist. I'm no professor, but since your question seems in earnest, after Googling the concepts I've mentioned please let me know if you are still of the same opinion as when you wrote your comment.

Mz 10y ago

My opinion: This is not about the drivers. They were engaging in activity intended to be actively hostile to a competitor. That is why this is wrong. It is one thing to build a competitive business. It is another to try to actively undermine the competition, and not because your service is simply better. I get rather tired of a world in which "Well, technically, it didn't break any existing rules, so it should be okay, right?" gets used to justify all kinds of ugly stuff. We live in a world that our existing laws were not designed to account for because it hadn't been invented yet, nor even imagined. It is almost like saying "Well, if we invented magic and used magic to murder people, hey, we should be allowed to get away with murder because our current laws don't have clauses that address the use of magic, amirite??!!" Uh, no. You are not right. And I hope we will develop laws and rules that spell out that you are not right.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
Hey, good reply. Thanks! I think this convinced me. My issue was that I see myself as a pretty moral person, but if I were working for a startup and was tasked with "Implement a way to know how many Lyft drivers are out on the road," I could see myself doing something very similar to what Uber did, and also feeling mildly clever about it. Isn't that what we call out-of-the-box thinking? It seems like there's a fine line between being clever and being morally bankrupt. Clever hack: Using a language feature in a way it wasn't intended. Morally bankrupt: Using a competitor's API in a way it wasn't intended. So it was really hard to work through these concerns, or even begin to address them without talking publicly about it. But bringing it up publicly seems to entail people talking down to you (see the replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189381 in this thread). Just an interesting situation.
- TheCondor 10y ago
  There isnt that fine of a line. That's the moral hazard, are you building something or are you working to destroy something. Frame it as the VW firmware, they didn't cheat emissions because one or two guys did some late night hackers and put some extra code in to git, there was an orchestrated effort where a lot of people thought "out side the box" and rationalized their morals. Would it be more moral to report the API use to Lyft? Those folks are just trying to earn a living too, right? Would lent you feel just as clever reporting their vulnerability to them?

killin_dan 10y ago

Its against the competitive spirit of business. Like if I'm trying to run the best taxi service and someone runs a better one, that's fine, but if someone is stalking my driver's and spying on them, that's bullshit. It's cheating. Uber is capable of running the best service on a merit basis. Cheating this way is just childish and should be corrected immediately imo.

Spooky23 10y ago

Nothing at all. We should all aspire to such bold visionary behavior.

beedogs 10y ago
I really hope that's sarcasm, but I can't tell anymore. There are people all over HN who really think this kind of disgusting behavior is acceptable.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  It is! :)

ziikutv 10y ago

I think the main problem is.. No Consent. Consent it the cornerstone of all things. P.S: Literally paraphrasing my Engineering Professional Practice course. An exam of which I just crushed!

anigbrowl 10y ago

Consider the difference between a race and a boxing match. They're both sports but if you sign up for one and find yourself involved in the other you'd be unhappy. In law this sort of things is referred to as 'tortious interference'; Uber isn't running their own business here, but trying to fuck up Lyft's If they want to play that game, then why shouldn't Lyft send spies to their offices and attempt o steal Uber's corporate info? This sort of no-holds-barred capitalism has been tried before and people didn't like it.

justicezyx 10y ago

Sure, let's do whatever we can to sabotage, because it's just the nature of competition...

suneilp 10y ago

According to some comments, the api isn't even public. This behavior is quite thuggish of a digital sorts. I once heard from an Uber driver that the CEOs of the two companies hated each other and have gone crazy competing against each other. Either it's over a woman or they're really messed up in the head. Regardless, this is very disappointing.

beedogs 10y ago

HN proves, in the comments of nearly every story about Uber, that there's nothing wrong with any of the shitty things this company does to its competitors or customers. Straight-up stealing code from Google? I've seen it justified here. Stalking people? That's okay, too. Screwing over competitors with software like this? Totally fine! Uber can do no wrong on HN. It disgusts me, but I'll be satisfied when they've been destroyed through one or more of the myriad gigantic lawsuits they're fighting. The comments on that story ought to be amusing.

pyrale 10y ago

I'm going to repeat my previous answer to your previous question, as I posted it late and you probably didn't see it : Uber supposedly has no competition relation with drivers. Adding that drivers may choose to work both for Uber and Lyft, this gives Uber leverage against a category of population they have been known to abuse. The danger here is the combination of undue knowledge and a de-facto dependency relation in the hands of a known offender. In your example, you're saying Uber had to offer several hundreds of dollars for drivers to switch sides. However, nothing is said about how this spying contributed to this : maybe the offer could have been bigger. Maybe some drivers were precluded from receiving monetary deals because of it. etc.

SamBam 10y ago

I gather this is a good-faith question, but it's a little boggling to me how you can be asking it. One company secretly installed software on the phones of employees of its competitor, in order to track those individuals and perform corporate espionage on its competition, and you ask what's wrong with that? You say it should be ok because some of those employees were offered payouts to switch? Not only does that not remotely excuse the behavior described in my second paragraph, ask yourself: why is Uber engaging in these tactics against its competitor? It's definitely not to spur healthy growth and competition in the industry -- it's to help drive a competitor out of business and cement its monopoly. And if it becomes more of a monopoly... do you think that will be good for its employees in the long run?

andrewfromx 10y ago

I think u read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190719 it answers this question well. Even though the end result might have been good for Lyft Drivers, that's not the point. The point is this crossed a clear criminal line that we all want enforced for future cases like this. i.e. what if next time it's Pepsi Breaking into Coke etc etc and the group it benefits is different.

BearGoesChirp 10y ago

What's wrong with me offering a starving third world child the ability to be my full time house maid for $1 a day and room and board? Many of them would love the chance. Some will literally die from expose and lack of food and clean water. Yet it would be quite illegal for me to give them a chance to survive. I'm gone out the house 10 hours a day, sleep 8 hours, and have very few actual chores. They would only need to cook me a lunch to take to work, and do a little light cleaning. They could use the free time to jump online and learn from resources they would've never had access to. I'd even help them by getting them access to some skills appropriate help. There entire life would be massively improved, and once they feel ready to move back to their homeland and make their own living, I wouldn't stop them. Yet that isn't only illegal, if I tried to foster a child and treated them this way I would be considered a horrible human being. Weird, no? The main answer to this is that allowing this, while it may seem reasonable in a single case by case basis, caused massive social problems (child slavery lite) that justifies forbidding me from making an offer that could save the life of some child. The second and third order effects are too bad. (Or maybe they aren't and it would actually be better overall to allow it. It would be an interesting discussion either way.)