5 ms·

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,

by 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.
    - Cacti 9y ago
      Wow, I didn't realize it went that far. They are in deep shit.
pvg 9y ago
Not letting the health inspector in your restaurant is not exercising your right to refuse service.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector, but you have a suspicion he might be, and doesn't say they are when you refuse service, could you still refuse service? Could HN get in trouble for hellbanning/shadowbanning the wrong people too?
  - pvg 9y ago
    I think there's a great deal of mental fun to be had thinking about formal and informal social rules as some sort of underhanded C contest. But you can't lose sight of the fact it's not how such rules are generally applied in reality. The intent of the rule and the intent of the potential rule-breaker matter a lot.
    - abalashov 9y ago
      This. I've found discussing law with programmers a frustrating experience more often than not. Yes, I'm impressed that your pedantic mind has found all the logical and definitional loopholes, but now back to the real world, where that's just not going to fly with a judge or in any other context where high-level intent and psychological deliberation is considered.
  - pyre 9y ago
    > But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector If you look up his Facebook profile, find out that he's a health inspector, and deny him on the basis that he is a health inspector, what then?
- xixi77 9y ago
  Of course not; surely it is a condition of your food service license to allow inspectors on premises, so you'll lose it if you don't let them in (I doubt you'll get charged with a federal crime for it though). I don't see much in common with the Uber situation though.
DannyBee 9y ago
"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you say "3000 miles away in a storm drain" to deliberately mislead them, congrats, there are plenty of jurisdictions where you have committed obstruction. If every time they come around, you deliberately cover the spots with blood and the murder weapon hiding spot, ....
- bronson 9y ago
  > If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      Yes. You don't have to talk to cops. But that doesn't make you any less an accessory in this example. You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.
    - Tiksi 9y ago
      The fifth only protects you from self-incrimination.
      - 9y ago
pfortuny 9y ago
It depends on how you can get that information, though. Recall that we are talking about a corporation, not a physical person.

by xixi77 9y ago

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.
  - Cacti 9y ago
    Wow, I didn't realize it went that far. They are in deep shit.

pvg 9y ago

Not letting the health inspector in your restaurant is not exercising your right to refuse service.

mahyarm 9y ago
But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector, but you have a suspicion he might be, and doesn't say they are when you refuse service, could you still refuse service? Could HN get in trouble for hellbanning/shadowbanning the wrong people too?
- pvg 9y ago
  I think there's a great deal of mental fun to be had thinking about formal and informal social rules as some sort of underhanded C contest. But you can't lose sight of the fact it's not how such rules are generally applied in reality. The intent of the rule and the intent of the potential rule-breaker matter a lot.
  - abalashov 9y ago
    This. I've found discussing law with programmers a frustrating experience more often than not. Yes, I'm impressed that your pedantic mind has found all the logical and definitional loopholes, but now back to the real world, where that's just not going to fly with a judge or in any other context where high-level intent and psychological deliberation is considered.
- pyre 9y ago
  > But if the health inspector never says he's the health inspector If you look up his Facebook profile, find out that he's a health inspector, and deny him on the basis that he is a health inspector, what then?
xixi77 9y ago
Of course not; surely it is a condition of your food service license to allow inspectors on premises, so you'll lose it if you don't let them in (I doubt you'll get charged with a federal crime for it though). I don't see much in common with the Uber situation though.

DannyBee 9y ago

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you say "3000 miles away in a storm drain" to deliberately mislead them, congrats, there are plenty of jurisdictions where you have committed obstruction. If every time they come around, you deliberately cover the spots with blood and the murder weapon hiding spot, ....

bronson 9y ago
> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    Yes. You don't have to talk to cops. But that doesn't make you any less an accessory in this example. You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.
  - Tiksi 9y ago
    The fifth only protects you from self-incrimination.
    - 9y ago

pfortuny 9y ago

It depends on how you can get that information, though. Recall that we are talking about a corporation, not a physical person.