3 ms·

I hate to tell you this, but when a judge issues a warrant, denying (even through this method) is clearly obstruction of justice. That's right, if you work for

I hate to tell you this, but when a judge issues a warrant, denying (even through this method) is clearly obstruction of justice. That's right, if you work for Uber, and you help them do this, you can, and will go to jail - are you willing to go to jail just to protect Uber from potential legal problems?

sgtmas2006 9y ago
Why? Locking computers that aren't in company possession is common practice. You have to prove it's obstruction of justice.
- DanBC 9y ago
  No, people served with court orders have to obey those orders. All people have to show is that the orders weren't complied with.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    They also can probably get off if they show the warrant was defective. But that’s a risk you take. If the warrant was valid and you didn’t comply, you’re in trouble.
- protomyth 9y ago
  from the article: Uber built a whole system and gave it a swaggering name. It takes the procedure just one step further, but what a step. Actively building a specific system to counter a warrant is probably going to go a long way to prove its obstruction. Uber's less than lawful reputation won't help here.
- lvs 9y ago
  It's by definition. If you fail to comply with a court ordered search, you're in contempt of court. You go to jail.
  - bigiain 9y ago
    I notice Uber have probably-intentionally crossed jurisdictions here. Some guy in Canada pages a number - as the company training teaches - hen cops show up. That's plausibly not an attempt to fail to comply with a court order. Pretty sure telling your boss your office is being raided isn't an easy thing to prove contempt for, especially if it's company policy in subpoena-able training manuals. Then some anonymous team initiates a nuke-it-from-orbit sitewide computer lockdown remotely from the US. Where they're quite likely fairly well shielded from Canadian contempt-of-court rulings. Sneaky.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  So, here's where your theory is flawed: Many people equate standards in criminal law to "beyond any doubt", when the reality is "beyond reasonable doubt". When you write a program like this, and you can be shown to have executed it at a police raid, _followed by_ a call to your company's general counsel (or in this case to a "special team", "specially trained" to run a program called "Ripley", with the purpose of "nuking a site from orbit") to advise them, the claim that "this is common practice" goes out the window and "we're specifically obstructing a warrant until counsel/whatever other process happens takes place" becomes entirely "reasonable" as a depiction of what you are doing.
  - Bogdanovich 9y ago
    Not all government officials and police officers are the same. For example Magnitskiy scandal in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky#Exposing_the_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky#Exposing_the_... TL/DR: police had given the materials taken during the police raids to organized criminals, who used them to fraudulently reclaim $230m of the taxes previously paid by the company.

sgtmas2006 9y ago

Why? Locking computers that aren't in company possession is common practice. You have to prove it's obstruction of justice.

DanBC 9y ago
No, people served with court orders have to obey those orders. All people have to show is that the orders weren't complied with.
- rayiner 9y ago
  They also can probably get off if they show the warrant was defective. But that’s a risk you take. If the warrant was valid and you didn’t comply, you’re in trouble.
protomyth 9y ago
from the article: Uber built a whole system and gave it a swaggering name. It takes the procedure just one step further, but what a step. Actively building a specific system to counter a warrant is probably going to go a long way to prove its obstruction. Uber's less than lawful reputation won't help here.
lvs 9y ago
It's by definition. If you fail to comply with a court ordered search, you're in contempt of court. You go to jail.
- bigiain 9y ago
  I notice Uber have probably-intentionally crossed jurisdictions here. Some guy in Canada pages a number - as the company training teaches - hen cops show up. That's plausibly not an attempt to fail to comply with a court order. Pretty sure telling your boss your office is being raided isn't an easy thing to prove contempt for, especially if it's company policy in subpoena-able training manuals. Then some anonymous team initiates a nuke-it-from-orbit sitewide computer lockdown remotely from the US. Where they're quite likely fairly well shielded from Canadian contempt-of-court rulings. Sneaky.
FireBeyond 9y ago
So, here's where your theory is flawed: Many people equate standards in criminal law to "beyond any doubt", when the reality is "beyond reasonable doubt". When you write a program like this, and you can be shown to have executed it at a police raid, _followed by_ a call to your company's general counsel (or in this case to a "special team", "specially trained" to run a program called "Ripley", with the purpose of "nuking a site from orbit") to advise them, the claim that "this is common practice" goes out the window and "we're specifically obstructing a warrant until counsel/whatever other process happens takes place" becomes entirely "reasonable" as a depiction of what you are doing.
- Bogdanovich 9y ago
  Not all government officials and police officers are the same. For example Magnitskiy scandal in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky#Exposing_the_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky#Exposing_the_... TL/DR: police had given the materials taken during the police raids to organized criminals, who used them to fraudulently reclaim $230m of the taxes previously paid by the company.