3 ms·

Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. I don't see a big problem with it. If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then

by Zak 10y ago

Yikes. I know people who have the mentality that this sort of thing is ok. I don't see a big problem with it. If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? If it's not OK to do the original thing then that rather than trying to avoid being punished for it is the fundamental issue. I find it a little odd people are upset over this if they weren't similarly upset over Uber skirting regulations to begin with. Uber has been guilty of some other bad behavior toward employees, drivers and competitors that I find unacceptable, but Greyball seems fundamentally reasonable.

Analemma_ 10y ago
> If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obstruction of justice", to disincentivize people from covering up their illegal activities by any means necessary.
- Zak 10y ago
  Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. Most obstruction of justice statutes I found and read in 5 minutes of google searching required specific acts like destroying records you know to be part of an ongoing investigation or making false statements to officials, not simply any act intended to avoid the attention of law enforcement.
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    > Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. You're right, but as other people in this thread have mentioned, Uber wasn't simply refusing service to the suspected investigators (which probably would've been fine): they were actively wasting their time, making them think a ride was on the way when it wasn't. That tips it into obstruction of justice.

by Zak 10y ago

Analemma_ 10y ago

> If it's OK to do the original illegal thing, then why wouldn't it be OK to try to avoid contact with law enforcement while doing it? Because law enforcement might need to do an investigation to determine if you're doing an illegal thing or not. Impeding such an investigation is ipso facto illegal, regardless of whether the thing they're investigating is itself against the law. That's why we have a crime called "obstruction of justice", to disincentivize people from covering up their illegal activities by any means necessary.

Zak 10y ago
Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. Most obstruction of justice statutes I found and read in 5 minutes of google searching required specific acts like destroying records you know to be part of an ongoing investigation or making false statements to officials, not simply any act intended to avoid the attention of law enforcement.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  > Obstruction of justice generally require more active behavior than simply refusing service to someone you believe is investigating you. You're right, but as other people in this thread have mentioned, Uber wasn't simply refusing service to the suspected investigators (which probably would've been fine): they were actively wasting their time, making them think a ride was on the way when it wasn't. That tips it into obstruction of justice.