7 ms·

So, potentially stupid question but here goes...with a new CEO coming in, what impact will this have on the company in the short-term? Did they foresee this pro

So, potentially stupid question but here goes...with a new CEO coming in, what impact will this have on the company in the short-term? Did they foresee this probe coming or is this something that they will have to scramble to react to? I mean it sounds like they may have expected this investigation with the handling of obtaining medical records, but wow.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> Did they foresee this probe coming or is this something that they will have to scramble to react to? It depends entirely on whether or not this was a top-down decision. The most efficiently run companies consider the likely returns on illegal activity and the potential ramifications of getting caught. If the math works out in favor of the illegal behavior, they'll go ahead and do that. Depending on the nature of the illegal behavior, they may save for a fund that would pay for costs of being caught. The math isn't just about money in vs money out, either. The best consider the effect on the brand, cost of a PR campaign, potential legal changes, lobbying fees(to make currently illegal behavior legal), the likelihood of getting caught in the first place, and a lot of other stuff that I'm probably not thinking about. It's not right, but when shareholders demand exponential growth, the owners and managers will do what is necessary to make that happen.
- exelius 9y ago
  Come on -- the case in question is in India. Bribes are a way of life there. You literally cannot do business there without paying bribes. Nobody had to tell anyone to pay the bribe; if they're anything like every other company I've worked with over there, they have an official slush fund for this stuff. You just do it. Now, it's pretty abhorrent that they doxed a rape victim; and that behavior is reason enough to investigate IMO. But the bribery part? Literally everyone does it because you have to if you want anything to get done there as a foreigner / foreign company.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    That's correct - and it definitely affects the math involved. It would be way more expensive in many ways to be involved in bribery in a larger country like Canada, to the point that the illegal activity likely wouldn't be worth the potential cost. But in India, the cost of such illegal activity is very different, thus is more likely to be worth it.
  - ajdlinux 9y ago
    I don't know about the US, but in Australia, our foreign bribery laws explicitly exempt "facilitation payments", i.e. bribes that are customarily paid to grease the wheels of bureaucracy and get routine government actions done. However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing, and it also wouldn't cover bribes intended to secure new business, which are presumably extremely common in countries like India.
    - dbuxton 9y ago
      The FCPA similarly differentiates. However the practical problem is that running a defense based on whether a certain activity was a facilitation payment (to secure the performance of a "routine government action") means you essentially have to admit that the potentially unlawful activity actually took place, and you move onto generally very treacherous ground. For that reason most companies don't go that route. In any case as others have noted it's not relevant here because getting someone's medical records isn't a service that you're entitled to.
    - tryingagainbro 9y ago
      However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing The article didn't say anything about the rape case. Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions.
      - saghm 9y ago
        > The article didn't say anything about the rape case. From TFA: "Reuters in June reported that Uber had hired a law firm to investigate how it obtained the medical records of an Indian woman who was raped by an Uber driver in 2014." > Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Regardless of the calculus, it was morally bankrupt and probably illegal.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  The best run companies transform top-down decisions into bottom-up ones, helpfully protecting executives from consequences. How it works is through setting high expectations in a "get it done" culture, and then carefully cultivating strategic ignorance about illegal activity that's positive value.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

> Did they foresee this probe coming or is this something that they will have to scramble to react to? It depends entirely on whether or not this was a top-down decision. The most efficiently run companies consider the likely returns on illegal activity and the potential ramifications of getting caught. If the math works out in favor of the illegal behavior, they'll go ahead and do that. Depending on the nature of the illegal behavior, they may save for a fund that would pay for costs of being caught. The math isn't just about money in vs money out, either. The best consider the effect on the brand, cost of a PR campaign, potential legal changes, lobbying fees(to make currently illegal behavior legal), the likelihood of getting caught in the first place, and a lot of other stuff that I'm probably not thinking about. It's not right, but when shareholders demand exponential growth, the owners and managers will do what is necessary to make that happen.

exelius 9y ago
Come on -- the case in question is in India. Bribes are a way of life there. You literally cannot do business there without paying bribes. Nobody had to tell anyone to pay the bribe; if they're anything like every other company I've worked with over there, they have an official slush fund for this stuff. You just do it. Now, it's pretty abhorrent that they doxed a rape victim; and that behavior is reason enough to investigate IMO. But the bribery part? Literally everyone does it because you have to if you want anything to get done there as a foreigner / foreign company.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  That's correct - and it definitely affects the math involved. It would be way more expensive in many ways to be involved in bribery in a larger country like Canada, to the point that the illegal activity likely wouldn't be worth the potential cost. But in India, the cost of such illegal activity is very different, thus is more likely to be worth it.
- ajdlinux 9y ago
  I don't know about the US, but in Australia, our foreign bribery laws explicitly exempt "facilitation payments", i.e. bribes that are customarily paid to grease the wheels of bureaucracy and get routine government actions done. However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing, and it also wouldn't cover bribes intended to secure new business, which are presumably extremely common in countries like India.
  - dbuxton 9y ago
    The FCPA similarly differentiates. However the practical problem is that running a defense based on whether a certain activity was a facilitation payment (to secure the performance of a "routine government action") means you essentially have to admit that the potentially unlawful activity actually took place, and you move onto generally very treacherous ground. For that reason most companies don't go that route. In any case as others have noted it's not relevant here because getting someone's medical records isn't a service that you're entitled to.
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    However, that certainly wouldn't cover anything like this alleged rape doxxing The article didn't say anything about the rape case. Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions.
    - saghm 9y ago
      > The article didn't say anything about the rape case. From TFA: "Reuters in June reported that Uber had hired a law firm to investigate how it obtained the medical records of an Indian woman who was raped by an Uber driver in 2014." > Getting her info could have cost less than $100, but staying in business in certain countries could run in tens of millions. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Regardless of the calculus, it was morally bankrupt and probably illegal.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The best run companies transform top-down decisions into bottom-up ones, helpfully protecting executives from consequences. How it works is through setting high expectations in a "get it done" culture, and then carefully cultivating strategic ignorance about illegal activity that's positive value.