6 ms·

Headline is pretty misleading. The full quote is "On the surface it looks like you covered this up"

by abvdasker 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago
What the difference?
- IkmoIkmo 9y ago
  With all these cold winters, on the surface it looks like the earth isn't warming. ... however: yadadada. That's often how an on the surface statement is construed.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Right, but if you wrote "With all these cold winters, it looks like the earth isn't warming." Wouldn't that pass more-or-less the same message? I don't see how the omission is significant, let alone "pretty misleading".
    - macintux 9y ago
      "on the surface" is used when you're either arguing the opposite or leaving the door open to being wrong because you know there is more to be revealed. "it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Thanks! Not being a native speaker sometimes the nuances escape me.
        bllguo 9y ago
        I'm a native speaker and I think you're in the right. "On the surface" and "looks like" have effectively equivalent meanings and connotations, at least for me. I don't see how this headline was at all misleading.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        > "it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way. It seems to me that what he is saying is, in the absence of some sort of convincing exculpatory evidence or argument that so far has not been presented, it looks like a cover-up. I don't think I agree with your analysis here.
- gvb 9y ago
  If Judge Alsop said "you covered this up" it would be a statement of fact. He would follow that statement with serious sanctions and the lawyers involved in the coverup would be in serious risk of being disbarred. When he says "On the surface it looks like you covered this up" he is putting Uber and their lawyers on notice that they had better convince him that they did not in fact cover it up or their world will be filled with hurt. Update: See "Ethics in Discovery: Where the Rubber Meets the Road"[1] page 17 In an extreme example of discovery related misconduct experienced by the Commission, the defendant intentionally withheld relevant evidence through tampering with documents, lodging baseless objections to production, purposefully misleading the court and the parties, and delaying in responding to permissible discovery requests. Sounds familiar... and Fry's got hit with some serious sanctions (trial sanctions, not the fines). Ultimately, the Court struck the affirmative defense to the harassment claim, deemed improperly withheld documents presumptively admissible at trial, ordered a jury instruction that one of the justifications for firing a plaintiff was pretextual, permitted EEOC to argue adverse inference at trial, and imposed $100,000 in sanctions ($25,000 to each of three plaintiffs and $25,000 to the court). In addition, the Court appointed a special master to review and report to the court about defendant’s compliance with outstanding discovery requests. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2013/03/ethics_professionalresponsibilitycommitteemidwintermeeting/3rubber.authcheckdam.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Right, but the headline isn't "you covered this up", it's "it looks like you covered this up*. The omitted part ("on the surface") doesn't seem to significant alter the statement to me, does it?
    - gvb 9y ago
      Agreed.
  - theduncan 9y ago
    He asked on Tuesday, how is he meant to believe anything they say? Its not the first time they have mislead the court.
adjkant 9y ago
If anything the headline is misleading in the other direction. The details in this are pretty damning: 1. Paid an employee 4.5M after sending accusatory email to CEO 2. Levandowski used Wickr for an unknown purpose, an app no longer used within the company 3. Said email to CEO hidden from discovery during trial None of this is 100% proof, but the body of evidence that is growing makes it harder and harder to reasonably believe that Uber is innocent here. That said yes the quote as stated is misleading of what Alsup actually said. I just wish the headline was about the points above, not his quote.
- dmix 9y ago
  You can twist a narrative about using an app with 'self-destructing messages' to sound like a malicious act but what's stopping any individual or company from wanting privacy? Wickr is a very popular app, especially among technically-savvy people. With widespread surveillance and hacking there are a hundred other reasons besides hiding evidence from an IP trial for using an app like that. Uber's claims the letter from the security employee, who highlighted the use of 'special laptops' and self-destruction messaging apps, was of an 'extortionist' nature and led to him getting a payout. Calling that employee a 'whistleblower' is another potential spin. Which is why that statement rightfully includes "On the surface...". Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. And I don't think we should ignore that
  - adjkant 9y ago
    I agree, there are other uses for sure. But, again, you have to look at the full body of evidence. The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before? Add that to all the other context of the case, and malicious use is a lot more likely to me. > Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil suit and subject to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I find a hard time making an argument that it's more likely Uber didn't use Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lostboys67 9y ago
This is just the way Judges do sarcasm
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 9y ago
The very experienced judge also said, “I have never seen a case where there were so many bad things done like Uber has done in this case” Do you happen to work for Uber?
- abvdasker 9y ago
  Even if I did work for Uber (I don't) would it change the fact that this headline truncated the original quote to make it sound more controversial? That kind of thinking is what leads people to ignore facts that challenge their preconceived ideas.

Headline is pretty misleading. The full quote is "On the surface it looks like you covered this up"

icebraining 9y ago

What the difference?

IkmoIkmo 9y ago
With all these cold winters, on the surface it looks like the earth isn't warming. ... however: yadadada. That's often how an on the surface statement is construed.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Right, but if you wrote "With all these cold winters, it looks like the earth isn't warming." Wouldn't that pass more-or-less the same message? I don't see how the omission is significant, let alone "pretty misleading".
  - macintux 9y ago
    "on the surface" is used when you're either arguing the opposite or leaving the door open to being wrong because you know there is more to be revealed. "it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Thanks! Not being a native speaker sometimes the nuances escape me.
      - bllguo 9y ago
        I'm a native speaker and I think you're in the right. "On the surface" and "looks like" have effectively equivalent meanings and connotations, at least for me. I don't see how this headline was at all misleading.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      > "it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way. It seems to me that what he is saying is, in the absence of some sort of convincing exculpatory evidence or argument that so far has not been presented, it looks like a cover-up. I don't think I agree with your analysis here.
gvb 9y ago
If Judge Alsop said "you covered this up" it would be a statement of fact. He would follow that statement with serious sanctions and the lawyers involved in the coverup would be in serious risk of being disbarred. When he says "On the surface it looks like you covered this up" he is putting Uber and their lawyers on notice that they had better convince him that they did not in fact cover it up or their world will be filled with hurt. Update: See "Ethics in Discovery: Where the Rubber Meets the Road"[1] page 17 In an extreme example of discovery related misconduct experienced by the Commission, the defendant intentionally withheld relevant evidence through tampering with documents, lodging baseless objections to production, purposefully misleading the court and the parties, and delaying in responding to permissible discovery requests. Sounds familiar... and Fry's got hit with some serious sanctions (trial sanctions, not the fines). Ultimately, the Court struck the affirmative defense to the harassment claim, deemed improperly withheld documents presumptively admissible at trial, ordered a jury instruction that one of the justifications for firing a plaintiff was pretextual, permitted EEOC to argue adverse inference at trial, and imposed $100,000 in sanctions ($25,000 to each of three plaintiffs and $25,000 to the court). In addition, the Court appointed a special master to review and report to the court about defendant’s compliance with outstanding discovery requests. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2013/03/ethics_professionalresponsibilitycommitteemidwintermeeting/3rubber.authcheckdam.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Right, but the headline isn't "you covered this up", it's "it looks like you covered this up*. The omitted part ("on the surface") doesn't seem to significant alter the statement to me, does it?
  - gvb 9y ago
    Agreed.
- theduncan 9y ago
  He asked on Tuesday, how is he meant to believe anything they say? Its not the first time they have mislead the court.

adjkant 9y ago

If anything the headline is misleading in the other direction. The details in this are pretty damning: 1. Paid an employee 4.5M after sending accusatory email to CEO 2. Levandowski used Wickr for an unknown purpose, an app no longer used within the company 3. Said email to CEO hidden from discovery during trial None of this is 100% proof, but the body of evidence that is growing makes it harder and harder to reasonably believe that Uber is innocent here. That said yes the quote as stated is misleading of what Alsup actually said. I just wish the headline was about the points above, not his quote.

dmix 9y ago
You can twist a narrative about using an app with 'self-destructing messages' to sound like a malicious act but what's stopping any individual or company from wanting privacy? Wickr is a very popular app, especially among technically-savvy people. With widespread surveillance and hacking there are a hundred other reasons besides hiding evidence from an IP trial for using an app like that. Uber's claims the letter from the security employee, who highlighted the use of 'special laptops' and self-destruction messaging apps, was of an 'extortionist' nature and led to him getting a payout. Calling that employee a 'whistleblower' is another potential spin. Which is why that statement rightfully includes "On the surface...". Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. And I don't think we should ignore that
- adjkant 9y ago
  I agree, there are other uses for sure. But, again, you have to look at the full body of evidence. The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before? Add that to all the other context of the case, and malicious use is a lot more likely to me. > Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil suit and subject to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I find a hard time making an argument that it's more likely Uber didn't use Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lostboys67 9y ago

This is just the way Judges do sarcasm

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

woodandsteel 9y ago

The very experienced judge also said, “I have never seen a case where there were so many bad things done like Uber has done in this case” Do you happen to work for Uber?

abvdasker 9y ago
Even if I did work for Uber (I don't) would it change the fact that this headline truncated the original quote to make it sound more controversial? That kind of thinking is what leads people to ignore facts that challenge their preconceived ideas.