5 ms·
>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
by 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 agoNope. Lyft has to protect themselves from Uber drivers.
- kevan 9y agoIf 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 agoSo let the local officials bring a case.
- dragonwriter 9y agoOne possible outcome of an FBI investigation is information being shared with local prosecutors on which they might being a case.
- kevan 9y agoIf 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?
- bogositosius 9y agoWhat does this example scenario have to do with the federal government getting involved in taxi regulations?
- kevan 9y agoNothing. The comment I replied to was explicitly about local officials, not the federal government.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoI would be fine with that, but there's no reason that the federal government shouldn't also bring a RICO case for obstruction of justice.
- bogositosius 9y agoThere are plenty of reasons that they shouldn't. You may not agree with the reasons but they exist.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoWell, since you haven't stated what the reasons are, you aren't doing a very good job of convincing me that they exist.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> 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?? Sure, just like a mob boss has a responsibility to protect himself and his underlings.
- __jal 9y ago> 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?? When the "harm" is enforcing the law (issuing tickets for illegal behavior), do you sincerely believe this? If so, where's the line? Can my employer delay the cops at the front door while I head out the back over: - Parking tickets? - Drug use? - Fraud? - Theft? - Assault? - Murder? How much interference with law enforcement do you believe employers should be allowed to get away with?
- dllthomas 9y agoI heard of cases where police officers would request rides in places where it was legal to pick someone up but there was an increased chance of the driver making a mistake and doing something they can ticket. If LEOs decide they want to waste everyone's time in what's basically entrapment, I've no problem with people wasting their time back. Imagine they were doing that to a pizza place, ticketing delivery drivers? How bad would the pizza place be for letting the phone ring? For saying "Yeah, we'll get that right out to you..." and doing nothing? (I don't know enough to say whether (or to what degree) the system was misapplied; it might well have been. Just that not all law enforcement use is automatically legitimate...)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]