31 ms·

Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities

883 points by techlover14159 9y ago

InclinedPlane 9y ago
Uber has nowhere to hide here. Let's say you're ordinary schlubs who are engaging in illegal activity at work, what's the dumbest possible thing you could do? Leave evidence, of course, or worse, create evidence. Such as talking about it over email. That would be super, super dumb. Let's look at the stratospheric levels of dumbness that Uber got up to here. This is a handy checklist of things not to do if you're engaging in criminal activity: Document their crimes by talking about them openly on official, archived communication channels such as email. Make the criminal activity official corporate policy. Write software to support their criminal activity, with no reasonable believable cover story. Give their criminal conspiracy a project codename. Even garden variety street gangs aren't this idiotic. Imagine the police pulling someone in for questioning and opening up their bag to find a notebook. Page 1 of the notebook begins with this heading: "Project Keys: Smuggling Heroin into the United States". Page 2 of the notebook is an extended description of the exact methods used to smuggle heroin past border security. Page 3 of the notebook is a list of dates, times, and individuals who have smuggled heroin into the US. And so on. No drug dealer is that stupid, because that would put you in jail for a very long time if it fell into the hands of law enforcement. And yet, here we are, Uber really is that stupid.
patmike830 9y ago
I hardly make recommendations but i wish to recommend SpyhackGod to those who genuinely need the service of a good hacker. He is probably the best of the best. He helped clear some bad records i had online, he was actually able to change my records in less than 24hours then my husband was a big cheat and i could not easily pin anything on him so i went on to hire him and he helped me hack my husband's whats app and gave me unrestricted access to his accounts including getting me on his facebook messenger, viber,wechat and he never suspected…. He is a pro at Facebook,emails,twitter ,Instagram hacking and cloning of phones.Contact SpyhackGod@gmail.com...I am sure he will help you. (promised to make this recommendation)
bogositosius 9y ago
Evading local regulators is a federal matter?
- kinghajj 9y ago
  When it's done systematically throughout the nation, I'd say so.
  - bogositosius 9y ago
    Assuming this is true, why does that make it a federal issue?
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Because the federal government has jurisdiction over many things that cross state lines. Even if you personally never cross a state line, if you're coordinating people in multiple states to break laws, and sending information to them about what to do and how, there's a good chance you're on the wrong side of some federal laws.
      - bogositosius 9y ago
        Yes, but for evading city taxi regulators?!?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Nationwide? Yes (at least arguably). At that point, it's a nationwide conspiracy. (Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
        bogositosius 9y ago
        The mafia-like, protectionist taxi regulations should be considered the true conspiracy, IMHO.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
It's so strange how quickly all of this happened. Actually I guess it's been awhile. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 was in 2014, wow.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- defen 9y ago
  You know, I remember posting on this site years ago that the Uber CEO was a terrible person (Based on a few interactions I had with him back when UberCab had about 5 employees) and being told by some prominent people that I was wrong. This was back when YC was talking about how "niceness" was a key quality in successful founders. Feels good to have my instincts vindicated.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    You should dig that up! Sounds like an interesting read.
    - defen 9y ago
      Unfortunately I think I substantially edited/deleted it because I didn't want to post personally identifiable information, but that meant my post was effectively an anonymous attack on a person's character. So in that regard I don't begrudge people for not believing me / not thinking I should post it.
  - walrus01 9y ago
    Uber is the prototypical example of what happens when you give a pack of fratbros too much VC money. The exact same thing happened in the late-1990s dotcom boom (And bust, 2000-2001), people have not learned their lesson. beenz flooz webvan pets.com (albeit, their business model has been vindicated by amazon many years later)
iloveluce 9y ago
Everyone really is piling up against Uber. I really hope this isn't some sort of Justice Department revenge against Travis for having left the Trump advisory council [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travi...
- Cacti 9y ago
  Travis seems more than capable of destroying his company on his own without resorting to fantastical conspiracy theories.
- was_boring 9y ago
  I would say it's more likely if he had stayed the politics could have stopped it. Now that he quit, he doesn't have the boss's blessing so they are free to pursue. This is exactly what K street is paid to stop.
  - akozak 9y ago
    No, despite most preconceptions about corporations and gov'ts you don't lobby your way out of criminal charges. The best defense to avoid this is don't do stupid things or break the law. This is actually really important for this community to understand, because a nontrivial # of founders read this. Don't get politically involved to enable bad behaviour -- not only is it wrong, but it won't work. Listen to your lawyers and conscientious objectors, and build a company around good products that people love.
- linkregister 9y ago
  I don't think the council holds any real influence. Also that would be unethical for U.S. Attorneys to do that. I think it's unlikely they're related.
nafizh 9y ago
This might be a blow back for Kalanick resigning from Trump's advisory council?
- aioprisan 9y ago
  Case brought by an Obama era US AG.
linkregister 9y ago
This is really big; if they were misusing credit card records like that, they risk losing accreditation from their PCI systems. There is probably some criminal aspect to violating PCI as well. Does anyone here know more about how PCI works?
- tylerflick 9y ago
  It's been quite a while since I've been involved with PCI, but it was mostly a compliance system for dealing with fraud risk. I don't remember any legal aspects of it though. There are different levels of PCI, each with requirements for risk mitigation. Edit: Fixed an apostrophe.
- dpark 9y ago
  I'm not sure this is relevant to PCI. PCI is about the security of credit card information. Do you store it safely, is access restricted, etc. I don't think PCI is concerned with whether you're doing ethically shady stuff with the data so long as it's stored and transferred in compliant ways.
  - braveo 9y ago
    If they were using the CC information for nefarious identification I would think that would fall under "is access restricted".
    - dpark 9y ago
      Not really. If someone hands you their credit card and you refuse to sell to them because their card has a Star of David on it, you are doing something nefarious with CC information but not violating PCI. PCI is concerned with reducing fraud cost. Visa does not care if the business charging your card is shady, only that it doesn't result in extra costs to Visa.
      - braveo 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but THAT is about the most ridiculous use of a strawman I've ever seen. Uber was using the CC information to LOOK UP MORE INFORMATION ON THE USER. Comparing that to someone simply refusing service is completely outlandish, uncalled for, and indicates a level of bias that is wholly unhealthy for both sides in this discussion.
Kinnard 9y ago
>the Greyball technique was also used against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars or otherwise prevent Uber from operating, the employees said Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees?? I think going after average or in many cases poor people trying to make a buck driving Uber is an "aggressive tactic"
- codecamper 9y ago
  Nope. Lyft has to protect themselves from Uber drivers.
- kevan 9y ago
  If those local officials were issuing arbitrary fines and illegally impounding cars I'd agree with you. But they weren't. Those local officials were enforcing the laws of their jurisdictions, which Uber was trying to circumvent.
  - bogositosius 9y ago
    So let the local officials bring a case.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      One possible outcome of an FBI investigation is information being shared with local prosecutors on which they might being a case.
    - kevan 9y ago
      If a police officer pulls me over and finds that I was driving without a license, they aren't going to let me drive away and file a case the next day. They're going to impound my car. Following that same logic, if a jurisdiction requires licenses for commercial taxi drivers, then operating as a taxi without that license will result in your car being impounded. Why do you feel these should be treated differently?
samrap 9y ago
At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until: > For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement. Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces. You can't run a successful company and get away with this stuff, especially as a start up when everyone is out to get you even moreso. I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.
- eridius 9y ago
  Why haven't you quit yet? There's been more ugly stuff coming out about Uber over the past few years than basically the entire of the rest of the tech industry combined.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I mean, we can say "It's wrong for you to keep using the thing on your phone that's installed and works," but all that will do is make people conceal that they still use Uber. A better approach might be an anecdote: My friend actually made the switch to Lyft, and apparently it's just as quick and effective as Uber. She hasn't had any complaints as far as I know.
    - eridius 9y ago
      I switched to Lyft a couple of years ago and have never looked back. The straw for me was when Uber sponsored a police militarization conference in Oakland (http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-is-now-sponsoring-a-police-militarization-conferen-1631115661 http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-is-now-sponsoring-a-police-...).
    - alexbecker 9y ago
      Almost everyone I know has switched (myself included), and we haven't had any issues. The fares are sometimes higher for long-distance pools, but that's pretty much the only difference I've noticed.
rajathagasthya 9y ago
Uber is having one hell of a year. Anyone have an idea whether it has significantly affected their recruitment of new people?
- dkarapetyan 9y ago
  Pretty sure they have a hiring freeze. Who would they be recruiting at this point?
  - owly 9y ago
    Lawyers.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jeffdavis 9y ago
Doesn't seem very likely to be a serious problem for Uber. Basically bad PR. If I were them, I would be more worried that they can't kill competitors well enough to ever be highly profitable.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  This would be one of the eggs they're putting in the basket of "we'll just corner self-driving cars"
terribleplan 9y ago
Ok, what's the over under on the people who coded this getting used as scapegoats? I'm at about 40/60 against. Morality and legality in software is a massive frontier we hardly pause to think about.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  0/100 (or 100/0 or whatever). "Above my pay grade" The code is the property of the company. Whoever ordered it be created and/or used would be culpable.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    I agree they Should be culpable, but whether or not they Would is the decision that is actually above our paygrade.
    - nebabyte 9y ago
      Wrong. There is no "should be vs. would be" dance here. It's spelled out in black and white in your employee agreement.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        Not all people, not even all programmers, sign specific agreements. I have taken programming jobs only signing tax documents. EDIT - I also wouldn't expect something as flimsy as a piece of paper to actually protect me my the likes of Steve Kalanick. He seems like the type to screw anyone over if he can gain from it. If I were those programmers I would get a laywer no matter what any agreement said. For the future, please consider that starting a post with "Wrong" is not polite and not conducive to meaningful discussion. It also doesn't make you any more or less correct.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        9y ago
nostromo 9y ago
I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.) If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that. And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.
- pvg 9y ago
  Nobody was forcing Uber to do anything. They were trying to deny agents of public regulatory bodies the ability to assess them. That isn't any kind of 'right'.
  - dangero 9y ago
    "right" is a moral judgement. It depends on whether you see this as civil disobedience. It may be "right" and also illegal at the same time.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      "Civil disobedience" is a term and group of actions used when fighting for racial equality during the civil rights movement. Equating that with anything uber, a multibillion international company, does is kind of gross.
    - Dangeranger 9y ago
      The law makes it pretty clear whether a business has the "right" to interfere with a criminal investigation. Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the "right" to not follow the law.
    - pvg 9y ago
      Since you can apply this to pretty much anything, this analysis is neither particularly insightful nor useful. It's a godwining in which you replace Hitler with Thoreau.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
xixi77 9y ago
What exactly part of this is criminal? I mean, isn't any business free to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they like (for example government employees, hackers, or Democrats), as long as they are not in one of several protected categories like sex/race/national origin/etc.? Or is this violating consumer privacy laws when CC info is used this way?
- duskwuff 9y ago
  I'm not an legal expert, but knowingly obstructing investigations by law enforcement seems like the sort of thing that'd get you in trouble.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I think if greyball popped a "sorry, access denied" message there wouldn't be much controversy. It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.
  - xixi77 9y ago
    But the employees in question didn't even identify themselves as such, did they? Like, if a random person on the street asks you what's your name etc., are you required to answer truthfully just because that person could be an undercover officer? Or even if you strongly suspect he could be one? I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right...
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Uber targeted them specifically though, via geofencing, bin numbers that matched leo credit unions, etc. They sought out LEO people, tagged them, and served up misleading data to them, for the obvious purpose of evading them and wasting their time. Your analogy doesn't match what happened. Try one where you seek out someone you research first, believe is an LEO, and then deliberately lead them away from something they might think is criminal or some other violation.
stepitup 9y ago
What's really strange is that I bet a good percente of the people reading this comment will know exactly what I mean when I refer to a: "Startup that employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them." Why aren't the authorities going over the ACTUAL, honest-to-god mafia startup? Sorry, I realize it's off topic here, but my first thought when I read "Justice Dept begins criminal probe" -- was FINALLY! We all know which company I'm referring to. And all I said was "employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them". There's only one company like that in our "community". Why are they allowed to behave that way with immunity? (Sorry to hijack this thread. Also, I have no disclaimer to make and am not associated with either company.)
- askafriend 9y ago
  Can't wait until Nextdoor replaces Yelp. It's only a matter of time.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    I dunno, I use both and most of the time I need restaurant reviews it isn't in my neighborhood. That being said, I rarely bother opening yelp since I'm usually on Google maps in the first place and in my area they have plenty of reviews.
  - aarpmcgee 9y ago
    haha not likely, i know people that work there.
    - askafriend 9y ago
      Why do you say it's not likely?
- tj-teej 9y ago
  If Yelp is the company you're referring to, can you provide links or go into more detail?
kafkaesq 9y ago
Finally.
maverick_iceman 9y ago
Intuitively, it seems that Uber committed fraud; but is there a specific law that they violated? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious to know.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  The most likely seems to be obstruction of justice or conspiracy to violate whatever laws the drivers were violating by operating in jurisdictions where they weren't allowed to operate.
dkarapetyan 9y ago
So Uber is now Theranos?
- walrus01 9y ago
  with slightly fewer turtlenecks
  - rdxm 9y ago
    golf clap....
- sambull 9y ago
  Always was. Throw other peoples money at the wall hope it sticks. All they really needed was people available to drive all the time/ and not to pay those people, and it would be a awesome business model. I'm convinced people are gambling with others money. Who pays for all these lost bets?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ianamartin 9y ago
Kalanick must have known this was on its way when he backed out of the Code Conference a few days ago. Even with just the events of the last few months, he was already going to be on the hot seat facing Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg. And you know neither of them were going to pull any punches. John Gruber quipped that cancelling that interview was probably the smartest thing Kalanick has done in a while. I see that point, but I slightly disagree. If Uber could come up with some kind of decent response to all of the recent shitstorms including this one, that would be a great platform to spread the message. Cancelling reads to me like they are afraid to answer tough questions because they have no good answers. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tangle with Kara Swisher in particular. She's tenacious; she doesn't care who you are or how big your company is; she will tear your intestines out your butthole and feed them to you while the entire technology world watches. I love her. She and Walt are shining examples of a free press holding the feet of the powerful to the fire when needed. The rest of the media could learn a thing or two from them. But back to the point, yeah, I bet he's glad he doesn't have to respond to this as well.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  I too would not like to go to a party where the host doesn't like me and has an asshole reputation.
  - ianamartin 9y ago
    Just because someone is willing to tear you a new asshole doesn't mean that person is an asshole. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who think of either one of them as assholes. You sound like Trump or Spicer. "Wahhhh. You asked a hard question! I don't like you any more! Go away!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
grandalf 9y ago
Edit: Please don't down-vote this. Up-vote it and argue articulately against it! The only thing more embarrassing for authorities than having propped up a corrupt medallion taxi system for decades is this sort of probe. In order to disrupt the corrupt medallion system it took billions of dollars and algorithms to evade the officials who had been tasked by the corrupt medallion industry to leverage small compliance technicalities to sabotage Uber in specific markets. Every municipality that had a medallion system that was disrupted by Uber was effectively humiliated. Uber revealed just how inefficient and profligate those systems are. The quality of car service everywhere Uber serves is supremely better than it had been before Uber. We can now get a car in minutes and see the ETA update as the driver approaches. So many of us found it infuriating to call 333-TAXI (or equivalent) and be told "5 to 30 minutes" no matter how much demand was going on. Then when the cab failed to show up after 40 minutes, a follow-up call would yield "it should be another 5 to 30 minutes" after which the operator would simply hang up. It took Uber's vision (and YC's vision in supporting it) to move the world forward into the future. We should all realize that the officials Uber had to fool using its algorithms were the foot soldiers of backwardness and corruption.
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true. So what? If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app, its neither that protectable or even all that innovative. Afterall Google was the 11st search engine. Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. And now every competitor, be it Lyft or taxi companies, offers the same service, with exactly the same drivers & exactly the same cars. Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber because a few years ago it was a hassle to get a taxi?If Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps? Uber
  - grandalf 9y ago
    > for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true It is :) > If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry. > its neither that protectable or even all that innovative Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself. Once this was in place (the protection) innovation was irrelevant as anyone who has ridden in a medallion cab pre-Uber can attest. > Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. Are you expressing doubt about whether people will need taxi style transit? I'd say it's one of the most proven business models in the world. The "subsidy" you mention allows Uber to grow more quickly than it otherwise would, but late stage investors are not stupid and would not pour money in if the economics were not sound. I don't actually care whether Uber ends up profitable in the long term or not. I'm not an investor, though I am a happy customer. But I do want a fair fight, and the DOJ picking on Uber is a major misallocation of resources. > Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber Not at all. I myself am not "loyal". A few months ago I made a post on HN in which I reached the conclusion that Travis probably ought to go. But making that argument does not mean I don't have tremendous respect for the company he built and the obstacles he overcame to make it happen. Travis is clearly an amazingly talented person who seems to have some blind spots as a manager. But let's not pretend someone like Eric Schmidt would ever start a company like Uber. Seasoned, wise managers are relevant when a company has generally plateaued. This does not justify the harm caused by bad HR practices and poor judgment in dealing with the treatment of women at Uber, but let's not forget that one of the problematic hires (perhaps scapegoats) at Uber had come from Schmidt's google where he'd had many years of success but had not disclosed the disciplinary circumstances of his departure from Google. > Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps This is farfetched, and not what I was arguing. My point is that Uber came up with a way to fight against one of the most entrenched industries in the world and win. This is generally what startups are supposed to do... create Schumpeterian growth which leaves a trail of destruction of the old edifices of power. It may be that Uber simply won the first round of battles but that the war will eventually be won by the cronies and insiders who cozy up to local politicians and held the taxi industry hostage for so long. They have not given up easily. In some cities they are still strong and don't plan to go anywhere. Before you decide to jump on the bandwagon against Uber, think about the many areas of life in which entrenched and backward systems oppress us and hold back progress. You are helping them drag us back into the darkness.
hackuser 9y ago
> If a ride request was deemed illegitimate, Uber's app showed bogus information and the requester would not be picked up, the employees told Reuters. Ignoring the illegality of interfering with law enforcement, this is bad customer service. Not only would I resent the invasion of privacy, but that algorithm is going to have a meaningful number of false-positives. It's a crappy way to deal with customers - if you think there's a problem, tell them you are denying service. It's hard to imagine another business doing this. Does a restaurant just not bring food? An online store just not send the clothes? I know you are thinking about shadowbanning, which I also think is crappy, but at least it's much less consequential.
gotothedoctor 9y ago
Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from it (which has a variety of other RICO implications.) 2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise. 3. Charging Uber under RICO would by no means be unusual or a stretch; this is a quite run of the mill application of these laws. (eg see Preet Bharara's RICO prosecutions: https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosections&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=preet+bharara+rico+prosecutions https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosectio... ) 4. This is unquestionably a federal matter, within the DOJ's jurisdiction. Uber operates across state lines--and used Greyball in multiple jurisdictions. That said, Uber could & likely will face criminal investigation in other jurisdictions. 5. Finally, this is definitely not Trump's revenge on Travis. Not only does it simply not work that way--USAs are independent & it'd be beyond illegal, but this specific USA was appointed by Obama. (There were two Trump didn't fire; USA Stretch is one of them) (*And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, many years ago, I worked at the Department of Justice)
- tossaway322 9y ago
  Just looked up RICO on Wikipedia and it has indeed been used in some dioceses to prosecute the Roman Catholic Church for the pedophilia and coverup that has occurred within the Church's clergy! The relevant excerpt: "Catholic sex abuse cases[edit] In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston, prior to his assignment to Vatican City.[11][12] In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in Pennsylvania.[13]" So RICO can be used for both criminal and civil charges?
mirimir 9y ago
If DPR had played a tighter game, maybe they could have managed a fully subversive ride service. But no matter how well executed, drivers would still be putting their vehicles on the line. Maybe look like hitchhiking?
Jabanga 9y ago
The laws Uber is accused of facilitating the violation of are themselves tyrannical abridgements of personal liberty. The entire exercise, from the local laws to punish Uber drivers, to the DOJ's prosecution of Uber for helping its drivers evade economic persecution, are a disgusting exercise in majority supported tyranny.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  Don't say that here :) Americans are big on obeying the law, no matter what.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The DoJ hasn't started prosecuting Uber and any speculation about what the charges would be if they were to do so is just that—speculation.
bbcbasic 9y ago
Another one! Can't wait to watch the Uber movie.
rdxm 9y ago
lol.... i believe the proper phrase here is "chickens coming home to roost"
beedogs 9y ago
It's fun watching the world's worst unicorn startup being turned into dog food.
SCAQTony 9y ago
Why is the Uber board allowing their CEO to continue to make sketchy ethical decisions? You would think they would ask Travis Kalanick to fall on his sword so the company can reboot and perhaps rebrand it's image so it would seem less "sinister" towards regulation, it's drivers and the law.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Uber is structured in such a way that Kalanick still has majority control. The board works for him, essentially.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
LordHumungous 9y ago
Theranuber
naskwo 9y ago
Last weekend, I visited Hamburg with my wife. I was surprised when I was told that I couldn't catch an Uber. However, on each German taxi (you know, the beige ones) there was a sticker prompting me to download the "EUTaxi" (or similarly named) app, which I did. Brilliant. I was able to summon a car within minutes, and this app also allows for paying via the app. Uber's biggest threat is, IMO, the creation of a well-working "push to ride & pay" taxi app by other countries that are as similarly well organised as Germany. For me as a consumer, I could care less if I download Uber or EUTaxi. As long as I get my ride on time, and with a professionally licensed driver.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 9y ago
  It's a huge difference when travelling. I really learned to appreciate Uber when I was in a foreign country, and could, _without local knowledge_, summon a car for a reasonable price and high confidence that I wouldn't get scammed. Interestingly, the Uber was also consistently way cheaper (think "half or less") than unlicensed local bike taxis, so I suspect that it does provide a value to the drivers too (maybe not having to stand around on a corner hoping for a customer for hours). Meanwhile, in Germany alone, you'd need to have multiple apps depending on which city you're in with little consistency between them.
- sreitshamer 9y ago
  Me too. During a 3-day visit to Austin TX I used RideAustin maybe 10 times. It was flawless. The app works just as well as Uber's, the cars and drivers were just fine.
- jmckib 9y ago
  I do care whether or not my drivers are forced to purchase a medallion and abide by other silly regulations, because it affects the cost and quality of the service.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > drivers are forced to purchase a medallion In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day. > and abide by other silly regulations Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones: - cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have drivers which are stuck on the side of the road if their GPS fails and also you don't want them spend a minute idling and typing the destination in the GPS. Furthermore, it makes for a more professional experience. - cab drivers have to know lots of tourist info (this applies at least for Munich, Berlin and Hamburg): you don't want to have cab drivers unable to at least explain a bit about the city. Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists. - cab drivers have to keep their car clean and maintained: once again: Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists. Which means that an unclean, falling-to-pieces cab will leave a negative impression on the city as a whole. Also, not properly maintained cabs are a safety risk. - cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B. Uber didn't grab much of a hold in Germany because the cabs here are not the total desaster that is found in other countries. Especially, we have the Beförderungspflicht, which means that a cab driver must transport you inside the licensed area, no matter how short or long the route, and especially discrimination on race or the 'hood where the passenger is hailing the cab is forbidden. The only reason for a cab driver to deny you transportation is if you're too drunk/drugged or armed/aggressive (both of which are a danger to the cab driver) or the destination is outside the licensed area (the cab driver still may set his/her own price for such routes, but very well deny you transportation if it's too far away).
topitguys 9y ago
What?? Looks like the sharing economy is really taking a lot of hit. I read somewhere that there is a conspiracy to defame companies like Uber and Airbnb. Both doing so well and helping people big time in such overly priced market..
- memmcgee 9y ago
  Well you sound like a legitimate real person. There's no conspiracy here, Uber is a shit company and their past actions are coming back to bite them in the ass.
laughingman2 9y ago
Lots of Anarcho-Kapitalists drunk on Ayn Rand Kool Aid. Travis is a criminal who has marketed his breaking of labor laws, civil laws as "disruption". Maybe this is what will happen you get billions of investment dollars without earning through old fashioned way of making profits. Financialism has blinded America.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  No, we've simply failed at educating people in what is right and wrong.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  The laws in question are tyrannical infringements of personal liberty. You don't have a right to prohibit people from trading a service for money.
  - AlexandrB 9y ago
    So based on your comment the following are "tyrannical infringements of personal liberty": * laws against child labor * laws against prostitution * minimum wage laws * background check laws As these all prohibit some subset of people from trading a service for money. My question is: would repealing any of these laws actually affect you or your job? I'm guessing not.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      Are children capable of providing informed consent for the purposes of the law? That's questionable, so it's questionable if all child labour prohibitions infringe upon individual liberty. But laws against prostitution and low wage work (aka minimum wage) are absolutely infringements of personal liberty, even if they directly affect only a tiny subset of the population.
  - dang 9y ago
amelius 9y ago
It seems like their company motto is: be evil.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It's like that good old joke - Google decided their motto is "don't be evil", Uber saw that and realized they just left them a market niche.
S3curityPlu5 9y ago
Uber needs to go down enough is enough already. how many times can you get away with criminal acts, most likely they will just have to pay a fine again though. It seems like corporations can get away with anything these days, and if they get caught they just pay a fine and go on operating.
pimmen89 9y ago
I see the civil disobedience argument thrown around here now. Are you seriously saying that running a business without complying to regulations is a civil right? Yes, the regulations can be argued to be whacky, but I don't see how they infringe on civil rights. Rosa Parks couldn't stop being African American but Uber can switch to another business plan.
raspasov 9y ago
How is "software used to evade authorities" different from .. using a "radar used to detect highway patrol"?
- gvb 9y ago
  It isn't. Illegal is illegal no matter the scale[1]. The scale, however, is substantially different between you with a radar detector and Uber's behavior. If you use a radar detector illegally and are caught, you will be fined maybe $150 as a civil infraction (no criminal penalties). If Uber gets convicted of obstruction of justice and violation of RICO statutes, that is now serious federal offenses with very serious criminal penalties (felonies). [1] The irony of your analogy is that Uber's business model is to legally enable "independent contractors" (drivers) to operate an illegal taxi service. Uber is legally brokering an illegal taxi service (the brokering is not breaking taxi service laws). In your analogy, Uber is the radar detector manufacturer and the drivers are the drivers. The drivers are operating illegally in both cases. If Uber stuck to "manufacturing radar detectors" (brokering rides), they would be legal. Instead, in addition to making "radar detectors", they set up "radar jammers" and directly operated the jammers in highly patrolled areas. That is directly illegal and thus Uber is at direct risk of criminal prosecution.
  - raspasov 9y ago
    Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am not an expert in all the law complexities in this area but I feel like that can be a great challenge for a lawyer that's up to the task to try and defend Uber. One can argue (and in my opinion, quite rightfully so) that it's not Uber's responsibility to offer anyone "correct data", especially when someone is trying to use it maliciously against them or their clients. To give another shot at an analogy, the radar manufacturing company doesn't owe the police a working radar (which also happens to be "free" in Uber's case).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JangoSteve 9y ago
  Because a radar detector doesn't send out a signal to the officer's radar fooling giving it a false speed. That essentially is what their software did. It didn't just alert the driver that the person requesting a ride may be law enforcement, it seems it actually showed the officer incorrect data to mislead them about the vehicles' whereabouts. And for the record, radar detectors actually are illegal in many states.
thr0waway1239 9y ago
Mark Zuckerberg must be feeling ecstatic. You don't need to outrun the negative PR bear, you only need to outrun your idiot fratbro friend.
wonderwonder 9y ago
Uber needs new leadership yesterday. Current team did the impossible and bootstrapped the company to where it is via hustle, working in the grey (and black apparently) and pure drive. They should be commended not for their methods but just the for the fact that they actually succeeded in the environment they worked in, one stacked against them. Uber is a real company now and they need to hand it off to a proven leadership team that can guide it moving forward. Give the current leaders a golden parachute but the time has come to transition.
ransom1538 9y ago
Meanwhile, %36 of US homicides are never resolved.
- meepmorp 9y ago
  What's your point? That no other criminal investigations should done till we've cleared those?
- ad-hominem 9y ago
  The team investigating Uber are probably 100% qualified and authorized to investigate homicides.
ausjke 9y ago
Austin where I live rejected Uber and it seems that's a right move.
- intopieces 9y ago
  Can you comment on the experience with the alternatives? This rejection happened right after I left, so I have been curious. Austin has a pretty bad DUI problem. Also, I think it's more accurate to say that Uber rejected Austin, since Austin merely voted in regulation it did not want to comply with. Is it true that UT-Austin has partnered with the rideshare company (Fasten?) to analyze the ride share data?
  - ausjke 9y ago
    Don't really use it often enough, but it seems daily life is not impacted that much, there are few alternatives, smaller but probably enough for local needs.
snappyTertle 9y ago
Sure, Uber may have broken the law (or evaded it); however, just because a law exists, doesn't make it correct. We should also question if the law should be there in the first place.
- ithinkinstereo 9y ago
  I see, and understand, the point you're making. But we do have established channels and processes for amending the law. If you decide not to go through these formal means, and favor an approach that directly violates said laws, you'll have to suffer the consequences. Just because we hate the "taxi cartel" and just because Uber provides an easy-to-use, convenient service, does not justify their actions. As a community, I think we really need to reexamine the whole "break things" and "ask forgiveness, not permission" culture that YC and the rest of the SV has endorsed as normal, operating procedure. It's gotten to the point where if you're not willing to bend and break rules, that's seen as some sort of weakness. Remember, rule of law, is the bedrock of a democratic civil-society. To erode that foundation, is to welcome a whole spate of nastiness that I know none of us want.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Uber has nowhere to hide here. Let's say you're ordinary schlubs who are engaging in illegal activity at work, what's the dumbest possible thing you could do? Leave evidence, of course, or worse, create evidence. Such as talking about it over email. That would be super, super dumb. Let's look at the stratospheric levels of dumbness that Uber got up to here. This is a handy checklist of things not to do if you're engaging in criminal activity: Document their crimes by talking about them openly on official, archived communication channels such as email. Make the criminal activity official corporate policy. Write software to support their criminal activity, with no reasonable believable cover story. Give their criminal conspiracy a project codename. Even garden variety street gangs aren't this idiotic. Imagine the police pulling someone in for questioning and opening up their bag to find a notebook. Page 1 of the notebook begins with this heading: "Project Keys: Smuggling Heroin into the United States". Page 2 of the notebook is an extended description of the exact methods used to smuggle heroin past border security. Page 3 of the notebook is a list of dates, times, and individuals who have smuggled heroin into the US. And so on. No drug dealer is that stupid, because that would put you in jail for a very long time if it fell into the hands of law enforcement. And yet, here we are, Uber really is that stupid.

patmike830 9y ago

I hardly make recommendations but i wish to recommend SpyhackGod to those who genuinely need the service of a good hacker. He is probably the best of the best. He helped clear some bad records i had online, he was actually able to change my records in less than 24hours then my husband was a big cheat and i could not easily pin anything on him so i went on to hire him and he helped me hack my husband's whats app and gave me unrestricted access to his accounts including getting me on his facebook messenger, viber,wechat and he never suspected…. He is a pro at Facebook,emails,twitter ,Instagram hacking and cloning of phones.Contact SpyhackGod@gmail.com...I am sure he will help you. (promised to make this recommendation)

bogositosius 9y ago

Evading local regulators is a federal matter?

kinghajj 9y ago
When it's done systematically throughout the nation, I'd say so.
- bogositosius 9y ago
  Assuming this is true, why does that make it a federal issue?
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Because the federal government has jurisdiction over many things that cross state lines. Even if you personally never cross a state line, if you're coordinating people in multiple states to break laws, and sending information to them about what to do and how, there's a good chance you're on the wrong side of some federal laws.
    - bogositosius 9y ago
      Yes, but for evading city taxi regulators?!?
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Nationwide? Yes (at least arguably). At that point, it's a nationwide conspiracy. (Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
        bogositosius 9y ago
        The mafia-like, protectionist taxi regulations should be considered the true conspiracy, IMHO.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

It's so strange how quickly all of this happened. Actually I guess it's been awhile. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496 was in 2014, wow.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
defen 9y ago
You know, I remember posting on this site years ago that the Uber CEO was a terrible person (Based on a few interactions I had with him back when UberCab had about 5 employees) and being told by some prominent people that I was wrong. This was back when YC was talking about how "niceness" was a key quality in successful founders. Feels good to have my instincts vindicated.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nebabyte 9y ago
  You should dig that up! Sounds like an interesting read.
  - defen 9y ago
    Unfortunately I think I substantially edited/deleted it because I didn't want to post personally identifiable information, but that meant my post was effectively an anonymous attack on a person's character. So in that regard I don't begrudge people for not believing me / not thinking I should post it.
- walrus01 9y ago
  Uber is the prototypical example of what happens when you give a pack of fratbros too much VC money. The exact same thing happened in the late-1990s dotcom boom (And bust, 2000-2001), people have not learned their lesson. beenz flooz webvan pets.com (albeit, their business model has been vindicated by amazon many years later)

iloveluce 9y ago

Everyone really is piling up against Uber. I really hope this isn't some sort of Justice Department revenge against Travis for having left the Trump advisory council [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travi...

Cacti 9y ago
Travis seems more than capable of destroying his company on his own without resorting to fantastical conspiracy theories.
was_boring 9y ago
I would say it's more likely if he had stayed the politics could have stopped it. Now that he quit, he doesn't have the boss's blessing so they are free to pursue. This is exactly what K street is paid to stop.
- akozak 9y ago
  No, despite most preconceptions about corporations and gov'ts you don't lobby your way out of criminal charges. The best defense to avoid this is don't do stupid things or break the law. This is actually really important for this community to understand, because a nontrivial # of founders read this. Don't get politically involved to enable bad behaviour -- not only is it wrong, but it won't work. Listen to your lawyers and conscientious objectors, and build a company around good products that people love.
linkregister 9y ago
I don't think the council holds any real influence. Also that would be unethical for U.S. Attorneys to do that. I think it's unlikely they're related.

nafizh 9y ago

This might be a blow back for Kalanick resigning from Trump's advisory council?

aioprisan 9y ago
Case brought by an Obama era US AG.

linkregister 9y ago

This is really big; if they were misusing credit card records like that, they risk losing accreditation from their PCI systems. There is probably some criminal aspect to violating PCI as well. Does anyone here know more about how PCI works?

tylerflick 9y ago
It's been quite a while since I've been involved with PCI, but it was mostly a compliance system for dealing with fraud risk. I don't remember any legal aspects of it though. There are different levels of PCI, each with requirements for risk mitigation. Edit: Fixed an apostrophe.
dpark 9y ago
I'm not sure this is relevant to PCI. PCI is about the security of credit card information. Do you store it safely, is access restricted, etc. I don't think PCI is concerned with whether you're doing ethically shady stuff with the data so long as it's stored and transferred in compliant ways.
- braveo 9y ago
  If they were using the CC information for nefarious identification I would think that would fall under "is access restricted".
  - dpark 9y ago
    Not really. If someone hands you their credit card and you refuse to sell to them because their card has a Star of David on it, you are doing something nefarious with CC information but not violating PCI. PCI is concerned with reducing fraud cost. Visa does not care if the business charging your card is shady, only that it doesn't result in extra costs to Visa.
    - braveo 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but THAT is about the most ridiculous use of a strawman I've ever seen. Uber was using the CC information to LOOK UP MORE INFORMATION ON THE USER. Comparing that to someone simply refusing service is completely outlandish, uncalled for, and indicates a level of bias that is wholly unhealthy for both sides in this discussion.

Kinnard 9y ago

>the Greyball technique was also used against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars or otherwise prevent Uber from operating, the employees said Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees?? I think going after average or in many cases poor people trying to make a buck driving Uber is an "aggressive tactic"

codecamper 9y ago
Nope. Lyft has to protect themselves from Uber drivers.
kevan 9y ago
If those local officials were issuing arbitrary fines and illegally impounding cars I'd agree with you. But they weren't. Those local officials were enforcing the laws of their jurisdictions, which Uber was trying to circumvent.
- bogositosius 9y ago
  So let the local officials bring a case.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    One possible outcome of an FBI investigation is information being shared with local prosecutors on which they might being a case.
  - kevan 9y ago
    If a police officer pulls me over and finds that I was driving without a license, they aren't going to let me drive away and file a case the next day. They're going to impound my car. Following that same logic, if a jurisdiction requires licenses for commercial taxi drivers, then operating as a taxi without that license will result in your car being impounded. Why do you feel these should be treated differently?

samrap 9y ago

At first, it seemed like legitimate software to assess spam until: > For example, it mined credit card information to see if the owner was affiliated with a credit union used by police and checked social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement. Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. Whether you're a startup that never makes it, or one worth billions, at some point this kind of stuff surfaces. You can't run a successful company and get away with this stuff, especially as a start up when everyone is out to get you even moreso. I'm still waiting for the big one that makes me quit using Uber though.

eridius 9y ago
Why haven't you quit yet? There's been more ugly stuff coming out about Uber over the past few years than basically the entire of the rest of the tech industry combined.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I mean, we can say "It's wrong for you to keep using the thing on your phone that's installed and works," but all that will do is make people conceal that they still use Uber. A better approach might be an anecdote: My friend actually made the switch to Lyft, and apparently it's just as quick and effective as Uber. She hasn't had any complaints as far as I know.
  - eridius 9y ago
    I switched to Lyft a couple of years ago and have never looked back. The straw for me was when Uber sponsored a police militarization conference in Oakland (http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-is-now-sponsoring-a-police-militarization-conferen-1631115661 http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-is-now-sponsoring-a-police-...).
  - alexbecker 9y ago
    Almost everyone I know has switched (myself included), and we haven't had any issues. The fares are sometimes higher for long-distance pools, but that's pretty much the only difference I've noticed.

rajathagasthya 9y ago

Uber is having one hell of a year. Anyone have an idea whether it has significantly affected their recruitment of new people?

dkarapetyan 9y ago
Pretty sure they have a hiring freeze. Who would they be recruiting at this point?
- owly 9y ago
  Lawyers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jeffdavis 9y ago

Doesn't seem very likely to be a serious problem for Uber. Basically bad PR. If I were them, I would be more worried that they can't kill competitors well enough to ever be highly profitable.

nebabyte 9y ago
This would be one of the eggs they're putting in the basket of "we'll just corner self-driving cars"

terribleplan 9y ago

Ok, what's the over under on the people who coded this getting used as scapegoats? I'm at about 40/60 against. Morality and legality in software is a massive frontier we hardly pause to think about.

nebabyte 9y ago
0/100 (or 100/0 or whatever). "Above my pay grade" The code is the property of the company. Whoever ordered it be created and/or used would be culpable.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  I agree they Should be culpable, but whether or not they Would is the decision that is actually above our paygrade.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Wrong. There is no "should be vs. would be" dance here. It's spelled out in black and white in your employee agreement.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      Not all people, not even all programmers, sign specific agreements. I have taken programming jobs only signing tax documents. EDIT - I also wouldn't expect something as flimsy as a piece of paper to actually protect me my the likes of Steve Kalanick. He seems like the type to screw anyone over if he can gain from it. If I were those programmers I would get a laywer no matter what any agreement said. For the future, please consider that starting a post with "Wrong" is not polite and not conducive to meaningful discussion. It also doesn't make you any more or less correct.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - 9y ago

nostromo 9y ago

I'm not a fan of Uber, but it seems like it's their right to decide who is allowed to use their service. (Baring protected classes, of course.) If a regulator started creating fake user accounts in order to scrape Uber's data, I don't see why Uber can't put a stop to that. And if a legislator is a vocal critic of Uber, I don't see why Uber should be forced to allow them to use their service.

pvg 9y ago
Nobody was forcing Uber to do anything. They were trying to deny agents of public regulatory bodies the ability to assess them. That isn't any kind of 'right'.
- dangero 9y ago
  "right" is a moral judgement. It depends on whether you see this as civil disobedience. It may be "right" and also illegal at the same time.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    "Civil disobedience" is a term and group of actions used when fighting for racial equality during the civil rights movement. Equating that with anything uber, a multibillion international company, does is kind of gross.
  - Dangeranger 9y ago
    The law makes it pretty clear whether a business has the "right" to interfere with a criminal investigation. Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the "right" to not follow the law.
  - pvg 9y ago
    Since you can apply this to pretty much anything, this analysis is neither particularly insightful nor useful. It's a godwining in which you replace Hitler with Thoreau.
  - wavefunction 9y ago

xixi77 9y ago

What exactly part of this is criminal? I mean, isn't any business free to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they like (for example government employees, hackers, or Democrats), as long as they are not in one of several protected categories like sex/race/national origin/etc.? Or is this violating consumer privacy laws when CC info is used this way?

duskwuff 9y ago
I'm not an legal expert, but knowingly obstructing investigations by law enforcement seems like the sort of thing that'd get you in trouble.
tyingq 9y ago
I think if greyball popped a "sorry, access denied" message there wouldn't be much controversy. It actively deceived targeted people though. Circling cars that never arrive, etc. Which could be viewed as obstruction.
- xixi77 9y ago
  But the employees in question didn't even identify themselves as such, did they? Like, if a random person on the street asks you what's your name etc., are you required to answer truthfully just because that person could be an undercover officer? Or even if you strongly suspect he could be one? I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right...
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Uber targeted them specifically though, via geofencing, bin numbers that matched leo credit unions, etc. They sought out LEO people, tagged them, and served up misleading data to them, for the obvious purpose of evading them and wasting their time. Your analogy doesn't match what happened. Try one where you seek out someone you research first, believe is an LEO, and then deliberately lead them away from something they might think is criminal or some other violation.

stepitup 9y ago

What's really strange is that I bet a good percente of the people reading this comment will know exactly what I mean when I refer to a: "Startup that employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them." Why aren't the authorities going over the ACTUAL, honest-to-god mafia startup? Sorry, I realize it's off topic here, but my first thought when I read "Justice Dept begins criminal probe" -- was FINALLY! We all know which company I'm referring to. And all I said was "employs mafia tactics and forces businesses to pay a protection fee, or actively fucks them up and attempts to hurt them". There's only one company like that in our "community". Why are they allowed to behave that way with immunity? (Sorry to hijack this thread. Also, I have no disclaimer to make and am not associated with either company.)

askafriend 9y ago
Can't wait until Nextdoor replaces Yelp. It's only a matter of time.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I dunno, I use both and most of the time I need restaurant reviews it isn't in my neighborhood. That being said, I rarely bother opening yelp since I'm usually on Google maps in the first place and in my area they have plenty of reviews.
- aarpmcgee 9y ago
  haha not likely, i know people that work there.
  - askafriend 9y ago
    Why do you say it's not likely?
tj-teej 9y ago
If Yelp is the company you're referring to, can you provide links or go into more detail?

kafkaesq 9y ago

Finally.

maverick_iceman 9y ago

Intuitively, it seems that Uber committed fraud; but is there a specific law that they violated? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious to know.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
The most likely seems to be obstruction of justice or conspiracy to violate whatever laws the drivers were violating by operating in jurisdictions where they weren't allowed to operate.

dkarapetyan 9y ago

So Uber is now Theranos?

walrus01 9y ago
with slightly fewer turtlenecks
- rdxm 9y ago
  golf clap....
sambull 9y ago
Always was. Throw other peoples money at the wall hope it sticks. All they really needed was people available to drive all the time/ and not to pay those people, and it would be a awesome business model. I'm convinced people are gambling with others money. Who pays for all these lost bets?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ianamartin 9y ago

Kalanick must have known this was on its way when he backed out of the Code Conference a few days ago. Even with just the events of the last few months, he was already going to be on the hot seat facing Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg. And you know neither of them were going to pull any punches. John Gruber quipped that cancelling that interview was probably the smartest thing Kalanick has done in a while. I see that point, but I slightly disagree. If Uber could come up with some kind of decent response to all of the recent shitstorms including this one, that would be a great platform to spread the message. Cancelling reads to me like they are afraid to answer tough questions because they have no good answers. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tangle with Kara Swisher in particular. She's tenacious; she doesn't care who you are or how big your company is; she will tear your intestines out your butthole and feed them to you while the entire technology world watches. I love her. She and Walt are shining examples of a free press holding the feet of the powerful to the fire when needed. The rest of the media could learn a thing or two from them. But back to the point, yeah, I bet he's glad he doesn't have to respond to this as well.

mahyarm 9y ago
I too would not like to go to a party where the host doesn't like me and has an asshole reputation.
- ianamartin 9y ago
  Just because someone is willing to tear you a new asshole doesn't mean that person is an asshole. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who think of either one of them as assholes. You sound like Trump or Spicer. "Wahhhh. You asked a hard question! I don't like you any more! Go away!"
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

grandalf 9y ago

Edit: Please don't down-vote this. Up-vote it and argue articulately against it! The only thing more embarrassing for authorities than having propped up a corrupt medallion taxi system for decades is this sort of probe. In order to disrupt the corrupt medallion system it took billions of dollars and algorithms to evade the officials who had been tasked by the corrupt medallion industry to leverage small compliance technicalities to sabotage Uber in specific markets. Every municipality that had a medallion system that was disrupted by Uber was effectively humiliated. Uber revealed just how inefficient and profligate those systems are. The quality of car service everywhere Uber serves is supremely better than it had been before Uber. We can now get a car in minutes and see the ETA update as the driver approaches. So many of us found it infuriating to call 333-TAXI (or equivalent) and be told "5 to 30 minutes" no matter how much demand was going on. Then when the cab failed to show up after 40 minutes, a follow-up call would yield "it should be another 5 to 30 minutes" after which the operator would simply hang up. It took Uber's vision (and YC's vision in supporting it) to move the world forward into the future. We should all realize that the officials Uber had to fool using its algorithms were the foot soldiers of backwardness and corruption.

gotothedoctor 9y ago
I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true. So what? If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app, its neither that protectable or even all that innovative. Afterall Google was the 11st search engine. Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. And now every competitor, be it Lyft or taxi companies, offers the same service, with exactly the same drivers & exactly the same cars. Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber because a few years ago it was a hassle to get a taxi?If Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps? Uber
- grandalf 9y ago
  > for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true It is :) > If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry. > its neither that protectable or even all that innovative Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself. Once this was in place (the protection) innovation was irrelevant as anyone who has ridden in a medallion cab pre-Uber can attest. > Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. Are you expressing doubt about whether people will need taxi style transit? I'd say it's one of the most proven business models in the world. The "subsidy" you mention allows Uber to grow more quickly than it otherwise would, but late stage investors are not stupid and would not pour money in if the economics were not sound. I don't actually care whether Uber ends up profitable in the long term or not. I'm not an investor, though I am a happy customer. But I do want a fair fight, and the DOJ picking on Uber is a major misallocation of resources. > Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber Not at all. I myself am not "loyal". A few months ago I made a post on HN in which I reached the conclusion that Travis probably ought to go. But making that argument does not mean I don't have tremendous respect for the company he built and the obstacles he overcame to make it happen. Travis is clearly an amazingly talented person who seems to have some blind spots as a manager. But let's not pretend someone like Eric Schmidt would ever start a company like Uber. Seasoned, wise managers are relevant when a company has generally plateaued. This does not justify the harm caused by bad HR practices and poor judgment in dealing with the treatment of women at Uber, but let's not forget that one of the problematic hires (perhaps scapegoats) at Uber had come from Schmidt's google where he'd had many years of success but had not disclosed the disciplinary circumstances of his departure from Google. > Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps This is farfetched, and not what I was arguing. My point is that Uber came up with a way to fight against one of the most entrenched industries in the world and win. This is generally what startups are supposed to do... create Schumpeterian growth which leaves a trail of destruction of the old edifices of power. It may be that Uber simply won the first round of battles but that the war will eventually be won by the cronies and insiders who cozy up to local politicians and held the taxi industry hostage for so long. They have not given up easily. In some cities they are still strong and don't plan to go anywhere. Before you decide to jump on the bandwagon against Uber, think about the many areas of life in which entrenched and backward systems oppress us and hold back progress. You are helping them drag us back into the darkness.

hackuser 9y ago

> If a ride request was deemed illegitimate, Uber's app showed bogus information and the requester would not be picked up, the employees told Reuters. Ignoring the illegality of interfering with law enforcement, this is bad customer service. Not only would I resent the invasion of privacy, but that algorithm is going to have a meaningful number of false-positives. It's a crappy way to deal with customers - if you think there's a problem, tell them you are denying service. It's hard to imagine another business doing this. Does a restaurant just not bring food? An online store just not send the clothes? I know you are thinking about shadowbanning, which I also think is crappy, but at least it's much less consequential.

gotothedoctor 9y ago

Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from it (which has a variety of other RICO implications.) 2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise. 3. Charging Uber under RICO would by no means be unusual or a stretch; this is a quite run of the mill application of these laws. (eg see Preet Bharara's RICO prosecutions: https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosections&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=preet+bharara+rico+prosecutions https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosectio... ) 4. This is unquestionably a federal matter, within the DOJ's jurisdiction. Uber operates across state lines--and used Greyball in multiple jurisdictions. That said, Uber could & likely will face criminal investigation in other jurisdictions. 5. Finally, this is definitely not Trump's revenge on Travis. Not only does it simply not work that way--USAs are independent & it'd be beyond illegal, but this specific USA was appointed by Obama. (There were two Trump didn't fire; USA Stretch is one of them) (*And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, many years ago, I worked at the Department of Justice)

tossaway322 9y ago
Just looked up RICO on Wikipedia and it has indeed been used in some dioceses to prosecute the Roman Catholic Church for the pedophilia and coverup that has occurred within the Church's clergy! The relevant excerpt: "Catholic sex abuse cases[edit] In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston, prior to his assignment to Vatican City.[11][12] In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in Pennsylvania.[13]" So RICO can be used for both criminal and civil charges?

mirimir 9y ago

If DPR had played a tighter game, maybe they could have managed a fully subversive ride service. But no matter how well executed, drivers would still be putting their vehicles on the line. Maybe look like hitchhiking?

Jabanga 9y ago

The laws Uber is accused of facilitating the violation of are themselves tyrannical abridgements of personal liberty. The entire exercise, from the local laws to punish Uber drivers, to the DOJ's prosecution of Uber for helping its drivers evade economic persecution, are a disgusting exercise in majority supported tyranny.

mdpopescu 9y ago
Don't say that here :) Americans are big on obeying the law, no matter what.
dragonwriter 9y ago
The DoJ hasn't started prosecuting Uber and any speculation about what the charges would be if they were to do so is just that—speculation.

bbcbasic 9y ago

Another one! Can't wait to watch the Uber movie.

rdxm 9y ago

lol.... i believe the proper phrase here is "chickens coming home to roost"

beedogs 9y ago

It's fun watching the world's worst unicorn startup being turned into dog food.

SCAQTony 9y ago

Why is the Uber board allowing their CEO to continue to make sketchy ethical decisions? You would think they would ask Travis Kalanick to fall on his sword so the company can reboot and perhaps rebrand it's image so it would seem less "sinister" towards regulation, it's drivers and the law.

matt4077 9y ago
Uber is structured in such a way that Kalanick still has majority control. The board works for him, essentially.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

LordHumungous 9y ago

Theranuber

naskwo 9y ago

Last weekend, I visited Hamburg with my wife. I was surprised when I was told that I couldn't catch an Uber. However, on each German taxi (you know, the beige ones) there was a sticker prompting me to download the "EUTaxi" (or similarly named) app, which I did. Brilliant. I was able to summon a car within minutes, and this app also allows for paying via the app. Uber's biggest threat is, IMO, the creation of a well-working "push to ride & pay" taxi app by other countries that are as similarly well organised as Germany. For me as a consumer, I could care less if I download Uber or EUTaxi. As long as I get my ride on time, and with a professionally licensed driver.

tgsovlerkhgsel 9y ago
It's a huge difference when travelling. I really learned to appreciate Uber when I was in a foreign country, and could, _without local knowledge_, summon a car for a reasonable price and high confidence that I wouldn't get scammed. Interestingly, the Uber was also consistently way cheaper (think "half or less") than unlicensed local bike taxis, so I suspect that it does provide a value to the drivers too (maybe not having to stand around on a corner hoping for a customer for hours). Meanwhile, in Germany alone, you'd need to have multiple apps depending on which city you're in with little consistency between them.
sreitshamer 9y ago
Me too. During a 3-day visit to Austin TX I used RideAustin maybe 10 times. It was flawless. The app works just as well as Uber's, the cars and drivers were just fine.
jmckib 9y ago
I do care whether or not my drivers are forced to purchase a medallion and abide by other silly regulations, because it affects the cost and quality of the service.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > drivers are forced to purchase a medallion In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day. > and abide by other silly regulations Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones: - cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have drivers which are stuck on the side of the road if their GPS fails and also you don't want them spend a minute idling and typing the destination in the GPS. Furthermore, it makes for a more professional experience. - cab drivers have to know lots of tourist info (this applies at least for Munich, Berlin and Hamburg): you don't want to have cab drivers unable to at least explain a bit about the city. Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists. - cab drivers have to keep their car clean and maintained: once again: Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists. Which means that an unclean, falling-to-pieces cab will leave a negative impression on the city as a whole. Also, not properly maintained cabs are a safety risk. - cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B. Uber didn't grab much of a hold in Germany because the cabs here are not the total desaster that is found in other countries. Especially, we have the Beförderungspflicht, which means that a cab driver must transport you inside the licensed area, no matter how short or long the route, and especially discrimination on race or the 'hood where the passenger is hailing the cab is forbidden. The only reason for a cab driver to deny you transportation is if you're too drunk/drugged or armed/aggressive (both of which are a danger to the cab driver) or the destination is outside the licensed area (the cab driver still may set his/her own price for such routes, but very well deny you transportation if it's too far away).

topitguys 9y ago

What?? Looks like the sharing economy is really taking a lot of hit. I read somewhere that there is a conspiracy to defame companies like Uber and Airbnb. Both doing so well and helping people big time in such overly priced market..

memmcgee 9y ago
Well you sound like a legitimate real person. There's no conspiracy here, Uber is a shit company and their past actions are coming back to bite them in the ass.

laughingman2 9y ago

Lots of Anarcho-Kapitalists drunk on Ayn Rand Kool Aid. Travis is a criminal who has marketed his breaking of labor laws, civil laws as "disruption". Maybe this is what will happen you get billions of investment dollars without earning through old fashioned way of making profits. Financialism has blinded America.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
No, we've simply failed at educating people in what is right and wrong.
Jabanga 9y ago
The laws in question are tyrannical infringements of personal liberty. You don't have a right to prohibit people from trading a service for money.
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  So based on your comment the following are "tyrannical infringements of personal liberty": * laws against child labor * laws against prostitution * minimum wage laws * background check laws As these all prohibit some subset of people from trading a service for money. My question is: would repealing any of these laws actually affect you or your job? I'm guessing not.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    Are children capable of providing informed consent for the purposes of the law? That's questionable, so it's questionable if all child labour prohibitions infringe upon individual liberty. But laws against prostitution and low wage work (aka minimum wage) are absolutely infringements of personal liberty, even if they directly affect only a tiny subset of the population.
- dang 9y ago

amelius 9y ago

It seems like their company motto is: be evil.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
It's like that good old joke - Google decided their motto is "don't be evil", Uber saw that and realized they just left them a market niche.

S3curityPlu5 9y ago

Uber needs to go down enough is enough already. how many times can you get away with criminal acts, most likely they will just have to pay a fine again though. It seems like corporations can get away with anything these days, and if they get caught they just pay a fine and go on operating.

pimmen89 9y ago

I see the civil disobedience argument thrown around here now. Are you seriously saying that running a business without complying to regulations is a civil right? Yes, the regulations can be argued to be whacky, but I don't see how they infringe on civil rights. Rosa Parks couldn't stop being African American but Uber can switch to another business plan.

raspasov 9y ago

How is "software used to evade authorities" different from .. using a "radar used to detect highway patrol"?

gvb 9y ago
It isn't. Illegal is illegal no matter the scale[1]. The scale, however, is substantially different between you with a radar detector and Uber's behavior. If you use a radar detector illegally and are caught, you will be fined maybe $150 as a civil infraction (no criminal penalties). If Uber gets convicted of obstruction of justice and violation of RICO statutes, that is now serious federal offenses with very serious criminal penalties (felonies). [1] The irony of your analogy is that Uber's business model is to legally enable "independent contractors" (drivers) to operate an illegal taxi service. Uber is legally brokering an illegal taxi service (the brokering is not breaking taxi service laws). In your analogy, Uber is the radar detector manufacturer and the drivers are the drivers. The drivers are operating illegally in both cases. If Uber stuck to "manufacturing radar detectors" (brokering rides), they would be legal. Instead, in addition to making "radar detectors", they set up "radar jammers" and directly operated the jammers in highly patrolled areas. That is directly illegal and thus Uber is at direct risk of criminal prosecution.
- raspasov 9y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am not an expert in all the law complexities in this area but I feel like that can be a great challenge for a lawyer that's up to the task to try and defend Uber. One can argue (and in my opinion, quite rightfully so) that it's not Uber's responsibility to offer anyone "correct data", especially when someone is trying to use it maliciously against them or their clients. To give another shot at an analogy, the radar manufacturing company doesn't owe the police a working radar (which also happens to be "free" in Uber's case).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JangoSteve 9y ago
Because a radar detector doesn't send out a signal to the officer's radar fooling giving it a false speed. That essentially is what their software did. It didn't just alert the driver that the person requesting a ride may be law enforcement, it seems it actually showed the officer incorrect data to mislead them about the vehicles' whereabouts. And for the record, radar detectors actually are illegal in many states.

thr0waway1239 9y ago

Mark Zuckerberg must be feeling ecstatic. You don't need to outrun the negative PR bear, you only need to outrun your idiot fratbro friend.

wonderwonder 9y ago

Uber needs new leadership yesterday. Current team did the impossible and bootstrapped the company to where it is via hustle, working in the grey (and black apparently) and pure drive. They should be commended not for their methods but just the for the fact that they actually succeeded in the environment they worked in, one stacked against them. Uber is a real company now and they need to hand it off to a proven leadership team that can guide it moving forward. Give the current leaders a golden parachute but the time has come to transition.

ransom1538 9y ago

Meanwhile, %36 of US homicides are never resolved.

meepmorp 9y ago
What's your point? That no other criminal investigations should done till we've cleared those?
ad-hominem 9y ago
The team investigating Uber are probably 100% qualified and authorized to investigate homicides.

ausjke 9y ago

Austin where I live rejected Uber and it seems that's a right move.

intopieces 9y ago
Can you comment on the experience with the alternatives? This rejection happened right after I left, so I have been curious. Austin has a pretty bad DUI problem. Also, I think it's more accurate to say that Uber rejected Austin, since Austin merely voted in regulation it did not want to comply with. Is it true that UT-Austin has partnered with the rideshare company (Fasten?) to analyze the ride share data?
- ausjke 9y ago
  Don't really use it often enough, but it seems daily life is not impacted that much, there are few alternatives, smaller but probably enough for local needs.

snappyTertle 9y ago

Sure, Uber may have broken the law (or evaded it); however, just because a law exists, doesn't make it correct. We should also question if the law should be there in the first place.

ithinkinstereo 9y ago
I see, and understand, the point you're making. But we do have established channels and processes for amending the law. If you decide not to go through these formal means, and favor an approach that directly violates said laws, you'll have to suffer the consequences. Just because we hate the "taxi cartel" and just because Uber provides an easy-to-use, convenient service, does not justify their actions. As a community, I think we really need to reexamine the whole "break things" and "ask forgiveness, not permission" culture that YC and the rest of the SV has endorsed as normal, operating procedure. It's gotten to the point where if you're not willing to bend and break rules, that's seen as some sort of weakness. Remember, rule of law, is the bedrock of a democratic civil-society. To erode that foundation, is to welcome a whole spate of nastiness that I know none of us want.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]