3 ms·

"... started requiring disappearing messages _specifically_ ..." But that's an insinuation. Just like the govt can insinuate that people using encrypted commun

"... started requiring disappearing messages _specifically_ ..." But that's an insinuation. Just like the govt can insinuate that people using encrypted communication are doing so to hide illegal activities. Is there specific evidence that Uber asked employees to use Wickr in order to hide talks of illegal activities?

paxy 9y ago
> Richard Jacobs, a security analyst whom Uber fired in April and now consults for the company, testified Tuesday that up to dozens of employees were trained to used ephemeral messaging systems, including Wickr, to communicate so that their conversations would be clandestine and could not surface in any “anticipated litigation.” Literally from the article.
- weddpros 9y ago
  Maybe he provided proof of that... maybe it was just his understanding? Legal departments know it's impossible to be 100.00% legal (who has never trespassed a single law?), and they're tasked with avoiding any legal risk. To them, it's probably just risk mitigation to ask employees to avoid leaving unnecessary evidence.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    There’s a line between managing risk and abetting. Uber likes to push or cross boundaries in many other areas, so it stands to reason that perhaps they did that here.
    - weddpros 9y ago
      Except if they can be found guilty because of suppositions. I guess it's just a case where the law makes no sense: you can't prove you've innocently suggested to use a secure communication tool for the right reasons, so there will always be a doubt about your sincerity.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        It’s more like when you claim that you don’t remember anything, but the investigators find out that the email trail (which jogged your memory) mysteriously stops at a time when you are suspected to have engaged in illegal activity. Then the investigators find that email stopped when you decided to use a “secure” messenger tool that automatically self-destructs messages. What inference would any rational human draw?
throwaway613834 9y ago
> But that's an insinuation. No, they're not just insinuating, but ironically you are.
weddpros 9y ago
Agree... Why not insinuate that people who use phone calls instead of emails are simply covering their tracks? And the worst, those who prefer face-to-face communication? Even simple logic fails so often with law/justice/government. Wickr: 'Secure Communications for Teams and Enterprises'... The law isn't OK with the concept of security I think (except security it can bypass of course).
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  It doesn't surprise me that the government isn't OK with the concept. After all, it makes their life tougher. It does amuse me though that HN isn't OK with it, because it's a corporation doing it.
  - weddpros 9y ago
    Governments are supposed to be in service of the people. People's security should be their goal, not a hindrance. They shouldn't abuse the power we gave them to enslave us. The more the world is upside down, the harder it is to respect the law for normal honest citizens.

paxy 9y ago

> Richard Jacobs, a security analyst whom Uber fired in April and now consults for the company, testified Tuesday that up to dozens of employees were trained to used ephemeral messaging systems, including Wickr, to communicate so that their conversations would be clandestine and could not surface in any “anticipated litigation.” Literally from the article.

weddpros 9y ago
Maybe he provided proof of that... maybe it was just his understanding? Legal departments know it's impossible to be 100.00% legal (who has never trespassed a single law?), and they're tasked with avoiding any legal risk. To them, it's probably just risk mitigation to ask employees to avoid leaving unnecessary evidence.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  There’s a line between managing risk and abetting. Uber likes to push or cross boundaries in many other areas, so it stands to reason that perhaps they did that here.
  - weddpros 9y ago
    Except if they can be found guilty because of suppositions. I guess it's just a case where the law makes no sense: you can't prove you've innocently suggested to use a secure communication tool for the right reasons, so there will always be a doubt about your sincerity.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      It’s more like when you claim that you don’t remember anything, but the investigators find out that the email trail (which jogged your memory) mysteriously stops at a time when you are suspected to have engaged in illegal activity. Then the investigators find that email stopped when you decided to use a “secure” messenger tool that automatically self-destructs messages. What inference would any rational human draw?

throwaway613834 9y ago

> But that's an insinuation. No, they're not just insinuating, but ironically you are.

weddpros 9y ago

Agree... Why not insinuate that people who use phone calls instead of emails are simply covering their tracks? And the worst, those who prefer face-to-face communication? Even simple logic fails so often with law/justice/government. Wickr: 'Secure Communications for Teams and Enterprises'... The law isn't OK with the concept of security I think (except security it can bypass of course).

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
It doesn't surprise me that the government isn't OK with the concept. After all, it makes their life tougher. It does amuse me though that HN isn't OK with it, because it's a corporation doing it.
- weddpros 9y ago
  Governments are supposed to be in service of the people. People's security should be their goal, not a hindrance. They shouldn't abuse the power we gave them to enslave us. The more the world is upside down, the harder it is to respect the law for normal honest citizens.