5 ms·

Full details: https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/911175207871762432 https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/911175207871762432 Criteria failed on: 1) Crim

Full details: https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/911175207871762432 https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/911175207871762432 Criteria failed on: 1) Criminal reporting 2) Medical certificates 3) something about DBS checks 4) Use of Greyball to identify and block regulators. Edit: Updated to new tweet.. they deleted the original

kawsper 9y ago
That gives a 404.
- fastball 9y ago
  Looks like they deleted the tweet.
  - alexfoo 9y ago
    Link works fine for me.
    - kawsper 9y ago
      It works again, strange.
treerock 9y ago
Thanks for that. It's pretty bad that the BBC posts more information in a tweet than they do on their new article.
- Angostura 9y ago
  I imagine the proper news story will be updated with the hour.
andygates 9y ago
Hmm, does that mean they used Greyball in London, or just the known sleazy uses? British regulators, just like CARB, have famously little sense of humour for stuff like that.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  AIUI, the regulator had evidence that Uber had used Greyball in some markets (i.e., the known uses), and Uber were unable to convince the regulator that they had not used Greyball in London.
  - dx034 9y ago
    Not even sure how you would convince them. Full code and database audit isn't easy nor cheap and I doubt Uber wants to pay for that. Apart from that, there's no way to detect if Uber runs services to detect regulators.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      Oh, I agree it's totally impossible, and the only solution is to not attempt to evade regulators in the first place. Otherwise you end up like Uber: > We know you've evaded regulators in these cases, in other markets. How should we know whether we don't have evidence of you evading us because you successfully have or because you haven't used it here? We didn't use it here. > You said that in the markets where we have clear proof you used that, why should we believe you? We won't disclose our code/database. > OK, we'll assume you did use it here. We didn't use it. etc.
    - vkou 9y ago
      Open up your books. The problem is that once you have a history of unethical behaviour, nobody believes you when you say 'don't worry, trust me'.
      - dominotw 9y ago
        were they given a chance to "convince" ? are they banned forever then?

kawsper 9y ago

That gives a 404.

fastball 9y ago
Looks like they deleted the tweet.
- alexfoo 9y ago
  Link works fine for me.
  - kawsper 9y ago
    It works again, strange.

treerock 9y ago

Thanks for that. It's pretty bad that the BBC posts more information in a tweet than they do on their new article.

Angostura 9y ago
I imagine the proper news story will be updated with the hour.

andygates 9y ago

Hmm, does that mean they used Greyball in London, or just the known sleazy uses? British regulators, just like CARB, have famously little sense of humour for stuff like that.

gsnedders 9y ago
AIUI, the regulator had evidence that Uber had used Greyball in some markets (i.e., the known uses), and Uber were unable to convince the regulator that they had not used Greyball in London.
- dx034 9y ago
  Not even sure how you would convince them. Full code and database audit isn't easy nor cheap and I doubt Uber wants to pay for that. Apart from that, there's no way to detect if Uber runs services to detect regulators.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Oh, I agree it's totally impossible, and the only solution is to not attempt to evade regulators in the first place. Otherwise you end up like Uber: > We know you've evaded regulators in these cases, in other markets. How should we know whether we don't have evidence of you evading us because you successfully have or because you haven't used it here? We didn't use it here. > You said that in the markets where we have clear proof you used that, why should we believe you? We won't disclose our code/database. > OK, we'll assume you did use it here. We didn't use it. etc.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Open up your books. The problem is that once you have a history of unethical behaviour, nobody believes you when you say 'don't worry, trust me'.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      were they given a chance to "convince" ? are they banned forever then?