4 ms·

This is like the least problematic thing Uber has done tho? The "law enforcement" they were fucking with was basically being thugs for enforcing a monopolist po

This is like the least problematic thing Uber has done tho? The "law enforcement" they were fucking with was basically being thugs for enforcing a monopolist power. Not very pro-consumer for the EU to try to go back to shitty overpriced taxi monopolies.

sorokod 4y ago
Would be good to compile that list. In your opinion, how would Greyball rank vs. payed-for research on the benefits of Uber's economic model[1] ? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/uber-paid-academics-six-figure-sums-for-research-to-feed-to-the-media https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/uber-paid-acade...
- collegeburner 4y ago
  I mean even if Uber paid for it the general consensus in economics is improving market efficiency is a net good. Like yeah obv it sucks for taxi drivers but the position of a lot of governments (EU more than most) is that consumer benefit at the expense of business is fine. So kinda inconsistent for the EU to say they'll go screw with other companies for consumer benefit but then "oh no not the poor cabbies, we can't let the cabbies make less money!" Also there's a lot of rent-seeking in traditional cab industry that comes from stuff like the high cost of entry and the lobbying to keep it in place so taking that out should make a better economic outcome.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    The EU most certainly doesn't legislate taxi regulations. If you think your local legislature is harming competition, speak to your local legislator. EU institutions can't help, by design, unless maybe if the unfair competition infringes your individual rights.
black_puppydog 4y ago
making sure taxis are safe for operation should be equally applied; being uber (and hence "the good guys") should not exempt you. and being the good guys should necessarily include being okay with playing by the rules. if you build an entire UX to avoid that -> fuck you, I don't care what you're replacing you're undermining any benefit you could claim to society
- collegeburner 4y ago
  youre not really trying the safety justification, not seriously? everybody remembers being in shitty cabs in places with "safety" regulations. if they cared about safety they could have designed an easy and simple process but this was about regulatory cature.
steveBK123 4y ago
I think the buttons in offices to nuke all records electronically if being raided by authorities is maybe extremely illegal? End of the day, tech companies exist and can attract investment due to IP protections provided by the rule of law. That rule of law involves actually having the laws being followed. VCs backing companies like Uber don't get to have it both ways and violate the laws they deem worthy of disrupting while employing legal departments to ensure the laws that protect their IP are followed.
- kristofferR 4y ago
  They didn't nuke anything, they just cut off access to remotely hosted resources.
  - dspillett 4y ago
    From the PoV of a cop with a warrant, that is effectively the same thing. The evidence they have a warrant to collect is deliberately made inaccessible to anyone at that location.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      > From the PoV of a cop with a warrant Did this ever happen? The article makes no mention of warrants or subpoenas for live driver location data. Even if such a warrant was issued, it would probably not be satisfied via the Uber app UI.
      - dspillett 4y ago
        > Did this ever happen? I've not seen it reported that it ever happened. The point is that they prepared for it and intended to take that action if the situation occurred. That they planned and implemented a method to obscure evidence is a strong indicator that they knew some of what they were doing was not legal (leaving aside discussion of where wrong & illegal do/don't overlap, in their opinion or ours or anyone else's). > it would probably not be satisfied via the Uber app UI. This part isn't about the app. It is about making data inaccessible at an office should the authorities enter that office - equivalent to quickly ramming documents through the shredder when you see an auditor approaching the building.

sorokod 4y ago

Would be good to compile that list. In your opinion, how would Greyball rank vs. payed-for research on the benefits of Uber's economic model[1] ? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/uber-paid-academics-six-figure-sums-for-research-to-feed-to-the-media https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/uber-paid-acade...

collegeburner 4y ago
I mean even if Uber paid for it the general consensus in economics is improving market efficiency is a net good. Like yeah obv it sucks for taxi drivers but the position of a lot of governments (EU more than most) is that consumer benefit at the expense of business is fine. So kinda inconsistent for the EU to say they'll go screw with other companies for consumer benefit but then "oh no not the poor cabbies, we can't let the cabbies make less money!" Also there's a lot of rent-seeking in traditional cab industry that comes from stuff like the high cost of entry and the lobbying to keep it in place so taking that out should make a better economic outcome.
- xorcist 4y ago
  The EU most certainly doesn't legislate taxi regulations. If you think your local legislature is harming competition, speak to your local legislator. EU institutions can't help, by design, unless maybe if the unfair competition infringes your individual rights.

black_puppydog 4y ago

making sure taxis are safe for operation should be equally applied; being uber (and hence "the good guys") should not exempt you. and being the good guys should necessarily include being okay with playing by the rules. if you build an entire UX to avoid that -> fuck you, I don't care what you're replacing you're undermining any benefit you could claim to society

collegeburner 4y ago
youre not really trying the safety justification, not seriously? everybody remembers being in shitty cabs in places with "safety" regulations. if they cared about safety they could have designed an easy and simple process but this was about regulatory cature.

steveBK123 4y ago

I think the buttons in offices to nuke all records electronically if being raided by authorities is maybe extremely illegal? End of the day, tech companies exist and can attract investment due to IP protections provided by the rule of law. That rule of law involves actually having the laws being followed. VCs backing companies like Uber don't get to have it both ways and violate the laws they deem worthy of disrupting while employing legal departments to ensure the laws that protect their IP are followed.

kristofferR 4y ago
They didn't nuke anything, they just cut off access to remotely hosted resources.
- dspillett 4y ago
  From the PoV of a cop with a warrant, that is effectively the same thing. The evidence they have a warrant to collect is deliberately made inaccessible to anyone at that location.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > From the PoV of a cop with a warrant Did this ever happen? The article makes no mention of warrants or subpoenas for live driver location data. Even if such a warrant was issued, it would probably not be satisfied via the Uber app UI.
    - dspillett 4y ago
      > Did this ever happen? I've not seen it reported that it ever happened. The point is that they prepared for it and intended to take that action if the situation occurred. That they planned and implemented a method to obscure evidence is a strong indicator that they knew some of what they were doing was not legal (leaving aside discussion of where wrong & illegal do/don't overlap, in their opinion or ours or anyone else's). > it would probably not be satisfied via the Uber app UI. This part isn't about the app. It is about making data inaccessible at an office should the authorities enter that office - equivalent to quickly ramming documents through the shredder when you see an auditor approaching the building.