5 ms·

From the article it looks like they did have a warrant. Denying the police from executing that warrant is probably against the law (I know it is in the US; not

From the article it looks like they did have a warrant. Denying the police from executing that warrant is probably against the law (I know it is in the US; not sure in Canada)

bigiain 9y ago
Who did the "denying" though? Someone in Canada just paged a number they'd been trained to when cops show up. That could easily be no more obstructing that calling your lawyer immediately (depending on what you could prove they knew about what'd happen then). Some team in San Francisco remotely shut down (and possibly deleted data/evidence from) company machines. Anybody on that team might want to forgo any planned trips to Canada, but it'd be a long stretch to think Canada would try to extradite them to face contempt of court charges.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > Who did the "denying" though?...Some team in San Francisco remotely shut down "Uber", the legal person is who. Why does HN think the law is a series of fixed instructions rigidly executed by a computer and can be easily hacked by overly clever constructs? "Well, I didn't shoot my wife, I just set-off the first domino on this rube goldburg machine - the hamster pulled the trigger - gotcha! ha ha ha". This will be put in front of a judge, and they will see through this for what it is.
  - bigiain 9y ago
    Yeah - I 100% agree that a judge will interpret this appropriately, but the dumb idea of "corporate personhood" still means there's questions to ask about who genuinely risks going to jail in a cross jurisdictional problem like this. It's pretty clear "Uber the legal person" is pretty happy breaking laws and has a long history of not suffering any real personal consequences. I'm reasonably sure a Canadian judge doesn't even have an existentially dangerous penalty they could apply to Uber-the-legal-person. Worst case seems to be they could shut Uber down in Canada and jail some local senior management. Uber-the-global-corporation probably has contingency plans and has determined and budgeted for that risk. That's their "business as usual". "The law", while generally robust locally against clever constructs, is probably not as effective a tool against globally distributed corporations - at least not in a very satisfying "Yeah, someone's gonna pay for that" kind of way...
    - bigiain 9y ago
      And in case my self-admitted Uber hate impacts anyone's view of that last sentence - see also Apple stashing huge cash reserves off shore to reduce their tax burden or Starbucks running a a loss in high tax countries by paying high prices for coffee and royalties to parts of themselves in more favourably-taxed countries - "Oh look, we made no profit in this country, no tax for _you_!"
      - bigiain 9y ago
        And a day later... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new-u-s-campus-to-pay-38-billion-in-foreign-cash-taxes-idUSKBN1F62FJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new... At least they're choosing to pay - at least in the US - and only after the Trump administration cut the tax rates, but still...
  - DuskStar 9y ago
    "Well, I didn't shoot my wife. I just called up my best friend and told him how I'm sleeping at a hotel after I found her in bed with the mailman." When someone else in the chain has agency, the argument for it being a rube goldberg machine gets a lot weaker. While some would argue that what the husband did here is bad, it certainly wasn't murder - not unless a lot of other factors come into play.
    - Terr_ 9y ago
      The problem with that variation is that: 1. Both sub-entities are part of the same company 2. One is acting on instructions from the other So how about this: "As a Corleone, have a very tight-knit family, and the senior members are afforded a great deal of respect. My uncle the gun enthusiast firmly instructed me that if I were to ever discover my wife in bed with the mailman, I should immediately leave him a message, unlock the doors and windows, and leave the house until he calls me back with additional advice."

From the article it looks like they did have a warrant. Denying the police from executing that warrant is probably against the law (I know it is in the US; not sure in Canada)

bigiain 9y ago

Who did the "denying" though? Someone in Canada just paged a number they'd been trained to when cops show up. That could easily be no more obstructing that calling your lawyer immediately (depending on what you could prove they knew about what'd happen then). Some team in San Francisco remotely shut down (and possibly deleted data/evidence from) company machines. Anybody on that team might want to forgo any planned trips to Canada, but it'd be a long stretch to think Canada would try to extradite them to face contempt of court charges.

sangnoir 9y ago
> Who did the "denying" though?...Some team in San Francisco remotely shut down "Uber", the legal person is who. Why does HN think the law is a series of fixed instructions rigidly executed by a computer and can be easily hacked by overly clever constructs? "Well, I didn't shoot my wife, I just set-off the first domino on this rube goldburg machine - the hamster pulled the trigger - gotcha! ha ha ha". This will be put in front of a judge, and they will see through this for what it is.
- bigiain 9y ago
  Yeah - I 100% agree that a judge will interpret this appropriately, but the dumb idea of "corporate personhood" still means there's questions to ask about who genuinely risks going to jail in a cross jurisdictional problem like this. It's pretty clear "Uber the legal person" is pretty happy breaking laws and has a long history of not suffering any real personal consequences. I'm reasonably sure a Canadian judge doesn't even have an existentially dangerous penalty they could apply to Uber-the-legal-person. Worst case seems to be they could shut Uber down in Canada and jail some local senior management. Uber-the-global-corporation probably has contingency plans and has determined and budgeted for that risk. That's their "business as usual". "The law", while generally robust locally against clever constructs, is probably not as effective a tool against globally distributed corporations - at least not in a very satisfying "Yeah, someone's gonna pay for that" kind of way...
  - bigiain 9y ago
    And in case my self-admitted Uber hate impacts anyone's view of that last sentence - see also Apple stashing huge cash reserves off shore to reduce their tax burden or Starbucks running a a loss in high tax countries by paying high prices for coffee and royalties to parts of themselves in more favourably-taxed countries - "Oh look, we made no profit in this country, no tax for _you_!"
    - bigiain 9y ago
      And a day later... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new-u-s-campus-to-pay-38-billion-in-foreign-cash-taxes-idUSKBN1F62FJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new... At least they're choosing to pay - at least in the US - and only after the Trump administration cut the tax rates, but still...
- DuskStar 9y ago
  "Well, I didn't shoot my wife. I just called up my best friend and told him how I'm sleeping at a hotel after I found her in bed with the mailman." When someone else in the chain has agency, the argument for it being a rube goldberg machine gets a lot weaker. While some would argue that what the husband did here is bad, it certainly wasn't murder - not unless a lot of other factors come into play.
  - Terr_ 9y ago
    The problem with that variation is that: 1. Both sub-entities are part of the same company 2. One is acting on instructions from the other So how about this: "As a Corleone, have a very tight-knit family, and the senior members are afforded a great deal of respect. My uncle the gun enthusiast firmly instructed me that if I were to ever discover my wife in bed with the mailman, I should immediately leave him a message, unlock the doors and windows, and leave the house until he calls me back with additional advice."