4 ms·

That's not what happened here at all. Uber deliberately tried to identify which users were law officers, and hide lawbreaking on the part of their drivers from

That's not what happened here at all. Uber deliberately tried to identify which users were law officers, and hide lawbreaking on the part of their drivers from them, in order to enable uber to make money.

nebabyte 10y ago
Yeah, IANAL but it sounds like the definition of obstruction of justice
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Not really. For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie. There needs to be an underlying actual crime. Whether Uber has committed any crimes is not clear. They will more likely bring conspiracy rather than obstruction charges.
  - nebabyte 10y ago
    Ic, thanks for the insight.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie." In the case i'm aware of, law enforcement was investigating criminal violations of local ordinances by unlicensed uber drivers. While i'm sure not a felony, that's definitely a criminal investigation they were seeking to stymie.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      If you are going to bring obstruction charges you will want to base them on something greater than license violations. That's akin to the cop threatening me with obstruction charges for warning other motorcyclists about a speed trap. Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a serious crime unto itself.
      - DannyBee 10y ago
        I'm not sure i agree with your example, but i'm just saying, there was an actual criminal investigation if they wanted to play that game. (Your example is not close to what happened here, as again, that would have been more okay. They did not warn the drivers. They hid the law violating drivers from the cops when they knew the cops were looking for them, and did so to make themselves money. It would be more akin to being able to change what the cop sees so that, at your command, all he saw was people going the speed limit, and nothing else)
    - HappyTypist 10y ago
      Those were all civil, not criminal.
      - DannyBee 10y ago
        Errr, the ordinances in question made it a misdemeanor with an X$ fine. Those are criminal, not civil. Example: http://www.local10.com/news/key-west-police-arrest-unlicensed-uber-driver http://www.local10.com/news/key-west-police-arrest-unlicense... "Operating without the required licenses is a second-degree misdemeanor. Illegal drivers face a fine of up to $500 and/or 60 days in jail." I'm not sure why you believe they are civil. They pretty much never are.
  - npizzolato 10y ago
    There doesn't need to be an actual crime. There needs to be an investigation of an actual crime. One which seems to have been taking place. Also, given how often Uber is brought up in these forums for ignoring/breaking local laws, I really would not be surprised to find that they have committed real crimes. I would be far more surprised if they had not.
- wav-part 10y ago
  Uber is not obstructing any investigation. They are proactively denying service to all LEOs. The mere act of driving or not driving to an LEO for whatever reason is not breaking of law.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "They are proactively denying service to all LEOs." No, that would be fine. They are instead, pretending to serve them and deliberately misleading them :) This is the "it's okay to not answer questions, it's not okay to deliberately mislead"
    - wav-part 10y ago
      LEO interacting with an app is not same as if it was a person. LEO is not conducting an interview with Uber when he uses the app. UX is not legally accountable response. To whom even Miranda warning will apply to ?
      - openasocket 10y ago
        Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody. The fact that it's an App is irrelevant: the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.
        wav-part 10y ago
        > Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody. Or in a custodial interrogation as per wikipedia[1]. My point is not every interaction, even if you are a person, is a custodial interrogation. I can stop talking. I can move away. Or even joke (Not recommended). It would not have any legal repercussions. LEO has to warn me the mode of interaction has been changed to serious from courteous. > the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted. First, the purpose and intentions are allegations yet to be proven in court. What I guess the Uber can say is these features are design to deny serivce to all LEOs wheather they are on investigations or not. Uber cannot even know if some investigation is taking place. Which I can empathize with. No one wants LEOs up in their shxt if they legally can avoid them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

nebabyte 10y ago

Yeah, IANAL but it sounds like the definition of obstruction of justice

sandworm101 10y ago
Not really. For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie. There needs to be an underlying actual crime. Whether Uber has committed any crimes is not clear. They will more likely bring conspiracy rather than obstruction charges.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  Ic, thanks for the insight.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "For textbook obstruction one would need a criminal investigation that Uber was seeking to stymie." In the case i'm aware of, law enforcement was investigating criminal violations of local ordinances by unlicensed uber drivers. While i'm sure not a felony, that's definitely a criminal investigation they were seeking to stymie.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    If you are going to bring obstruction charges you will want to base them on something greater than license violations. That's akin to the cop threatening me with obstruction charges for warning other motorcyclists about a speed trap. Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a serious crime unto itself.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      I'm not sure i agree with your example, but i'm just saying, there was an actual criminal investigation if they wanted to play that game. (Your example is not close to what happened here, as again, that would have been more okay. They did not warn the drivers. They hid the law violating drivers from the cops when they knew the cops were looking for them, and did so to make themselves money. It would be more akin to being able to change what the cop sees so that, at your command, all he saw was people going the speed limit, and nothing else)
  - HappyTypist 10y ago
    Those were all civil, not criminal.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      Errr, the ordinances in question made it a misdemeanor with an X$ fine. Those are criminal, not civil. Example: http://www.local10.com/news/key-west-police-arrest-unlicensed-uber-driver http://www.local10.com/news/key-west-police-arrest-unlicense... "Operating without the required licenses is a second-degree misdemeanor. Illegal drivers face a fine of up to $500 and/or 60 days in jail." I'm not sure why you believe they are civil. They pretty much never are.
- npizzolato 10y ago
  There doesn't need to be an actual crime. There needs to be an investigation of an actual crime. One which seems to have been taking place. Also, given how often Uber is brought up in these forums for ignoring/breaking local laws, I really would not be surprised to find that they have committed real crimes. I would be far more surprised if they had not.
wav-part 10y ago
Uber is not obstructing any investigation. They are proactively denying service to all LEOs. The mere act of driving or not driving to an LEO for whatever reason is not breaking of law.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "They are proactively denying service to all LEOs." No, that would be fine. They are instead, pretending to serve them and deliberately misleading them :) This is the "it's okay to not answer questions, it's not okay to deliberately mislead"
  - wav-part 10y ago
    LEO interacting with an app is not same as if it was a person. LEO is not conducting an interview with Uber when he uses the app. UX is not legally accountable response. To whom even Miranda warning will apply to ?
    - openasocket 10y ago
      Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody. The fact that it's an App is irrelevant: the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.
      - wav-part 10y ago
        > Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody. Or in a custodial interrogation as per wikipedia[1]. My point is not every interaction, even if you are a person, is a custodial interrogation. I can stop talking. I can move away. Or even joke (Not recommended). It would not have any legal repercussions. LEO has to warn me the mode of interaction has been changed to serious from courteous. > the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted. First, the purpose and intentions are allegations yet to be proven in court. What I guess the Uber can say is these features are design to deny serivce to all LEOs wheather they are on investigations or not. Uber cannot even know if some investigation is taking place. Which I can empathize with. No one wants LEOs up in their shxt if they legally can avoid them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning