4 ms·

I'm saying the article is muddled and unclear, not Uber. > "The Uber department responded that they had no record of a trip from the vehicle with that license

by hsod 9y ago

I'm saying the article is muddled and unclear, not Uber. > "The Uber department responded that they had no record of a trip from the vehicle with that license plate on December 5th, 2016, just after 11 PM, and the driver had not driven with them for 2 years." How do we know this is a lie? It could be true due to driver fraud (driving a different car than the one they have registered with Uber). Or it could have been some kind of mixup on their support team. > Uhhh... what? It violates privacy? Your either complying with the police or you aren't. "There was no warrant" would have been an OK answer, but that wasn't what they said. "It violates privacy" and "there was no warrant" aren't mutually exclusive, feels like you're splitting hairs here. If a request violates privacy, that's a good reason to ask for a warrant. Also, you left out this confusing paragraph: "It was later asserted that they reached out to the police detective to clear this up. They found the information and tried to contact the detective with all the information. If you are curious as to when this happened, it was April 9th. Uber did everything in their power to make the investigation successful and cooperate with the detective, on April 9th, 2017, four months after the incident. They also only reached out to the detective with the correct information once they were caught obstructing the investigation." It's still unclear to me how exactly Uber obstructed the investigation but maybe my reading comprehension is lacking.

zer00eyz 9y ago
> It's still unclear to me how exactly Uber obstructed the investigation but maybe my reading comprehension is lacking. Im terrible with dates so stuff like this slips by me ALL the time! - Monday, December 5th, 2016, the crime - Uber tells police that they "don't have a record of a trip..." - March 3rd, 2017. first court date - April 9th, uber amends statement to the police. We do have records but won't share due to privacy... You know, telling the driver that they are a matter of a police investigation and that they would be sharing data with them (aka cooperating) would have given uber a leg to stand on. Uber saying "We gave all the info to the police, it is out of our hands, we don't control our contractors" goes a long way in court. Lying, changing your story, tends not to.
- hsod 9y ago
  Except in the author's own narrative, Uber explicitly acknowledges that a trip and a theft took place during the first court date.
  - zer00eyz 9y ago
    Right, and that isn't what they told the police, the first time. Only after court when it was clear that "it didn't happen" will never hold water, did they go back and amend that record with them. This is literally how you get charged with "obstructing justice" --- you shut up or you tell the truth.
    - hsod 9y ago
      Are you talking about this part? It seems a pretty thin statement on which to rest an allegation of obstruction. "The Uber department responded that they had no record of a trip from the vehicle with that license plate on December 5th, 2016, just after 11 PM, and the driver had not driven with them for 2 years." This still leaves a lot of open questions and is IMO not even a compelling allegation of obstruction of justice, let alone proof. As I said before, it's entirely possible that the actual driver/car were not the ones registered with Uber on the account. It's also possible that somebody erred when looking up records, or a million other things. What we do know is that by the time this made it to the first court date, Uber was not denying that a trip or a theft took place. I'll reiterate my fundamental argument since this has strayed a little bit: this article is muddled and confusing with regards to cataloguing bad actions by Uber.
      - codedokode 9y ago
        If Uber did their best to help the investigation then they could look up information not only by license plate, but also look at customer's account, look what rides were taken at that location and time.
      - Chronos 9y ago
        You can be damn sure Uber has a record of every Uber ride ever taken. Even if Uber had incorrect records in their database about which car picked up the rider, because the driver had e.g. failed to update Uber with their current car and plates, there is no plausible reason why Uber would believe that the ride itself had never occurred, because they have the rider's account information. They could have produced "rider account X requested a trip in Boston on such-and-such date, we matched that person with driver account Y, and driver account Y was registered in 20xx to Vernon Dudley, 4 Privet Drive, ...". But they deliberately didn't provide that information. "this article is muddled and confusing" Reality is muddled and confusing. Real life never has the clarity of an omniscient third-person narrator telling the reader the actual facts of the matter.

by hsod 9y ago

zer00eyz 9y ago

> It's still unclear to me how exactly Uber obstructed the investigation but maybe my reading comprehension is lacking. Im terrible with dates so stuff like this slips by me ALL the time! - Monday, December 5th, 2016, the crime - Uber tells police that they "don't have a record of a trip..." - March 3rd, 2017. first court date - April 9th, uber amends statement to the police. We do have records but won't share due to privacy... You know, telling the driver that they are a matter of a police investigation and that they would be sharing data with them (aka cooperating) would have given uber a leg to stand on. Uber saying "We gave all the info to the police, it is out of our hands, we don't control our contractors" goes a long way in court. Lying, changing your story, tends not to.

hsod 9y ago
Except in the author's own narrative, Uber explicitly acknowledges that a trip and a theft took place during the first court date.
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  Right, and that isn't what they told the police, the first time. Only after court when it was clear that "it didn't happen" will never hold water, did they go back and amend that record with them. This is literally how you get charged with "obstructing justice" --- you shut up or you tell the truth.
  - hsod 9y ago
    Are you talking about this part? It seems a pretty thin statement on which to rest an allegation of obstruction. "The Uber department responded that they had no record of a trip from the vehicle with that license plate on December 5th, 2016, just after 11 PM, and the driver had not driven with them for 2 years." This still leaves a lot of open questions and is IMO not even a compelling allegation of obstruction of justice, let alone proof. As I said before, it's entirely possible that the actual driver/car were not the ones registered with Uber on the account. It's also possible that somebody erred when looking up records, or a million other things. What we do know is that by the time this made it to the first court date, Uber was not denying that a trip or a theft took place. I'll reiterate my fundamental argument since this has strayed a little bit: this article is muddled and confusing with regards to cataloguing bad actions by Uber.
    - codedokode 9y ago
      If Uber did their best to help the investigation then they could look up information not only by license plate, but also look at customer's account, look what rides were taken at that location and time.
    - Chronos 9y ago
      You can be damn sure Uber has a record of every Uber ride ever taken. Even if Uber had incorrect records in their database about which car picked up the rider, because the driver had e.g. failed to update Uber with their current car and plates, there is no plausible reason why Uber would believe that the ride itself had never occurred, because they have the rider's account information. They could have produced "rider account X requested a trip in Boston on such-and-such date, we matched that person with driver account Y, and driver account Y was registered in 20xx to Vernon Dudley, 4 Privet Drive, ...". But they deliberately didn't provide that information. "this article is muddled and confusing" Reality is muddled and confusing. Real life never has the clarity of an omniscient third-person narrator telling the reader the actual facts of the matter.