7 ms·

That sounds so illegal, it's crazy there aren't consequences for that. EDIT: Article on the kills switch https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-bos

• lokar 2y ago
  Nothing uber does is crazy anymore
  • NBJack 2y ago
    Not by comparison to Uber at least. 'Historical' documentaries about it are going to be wild. And probably on Netflix.
    • lokar 2y ago
      I meant they have redefined the bar for crazy to be so high no one will ever cross it. They are the GOAT for crazy.
    • fragmede 2y ago
      If you haven't seen superpumped or read the book and are interested in Uber's story, it's worth a read/watch, though it's dramatized for tv.
    • DoctorOW 2y ago
      History is written by the winners sadly enough.
• golemotron 2y ago
  The alternative, giving them a password that gives them read/write access to sensitive systems, would be insane. Subpoena for particular data.
  • dh2022 2y ago
    You can give them read access tokens that expire every couple of hours....
    • golemotron 2y ago
      The problem is deeper than that. When a physical space is raided, its scope is obvious. Digital spaces don't have that characteristic. There can always be hidden indexes.
  • MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Yeah it's hard to see how any French official would have authority to conduct searches 10 meters beyond French borders, let alone over all of Uber's computers located in dozens of other countries.
    • wang_li 2y ago
      Hard to see how a company can imagine it can do business in a country and not follow that country’s record keeping laws and be subject to criminal and civil statutes in that country.
      • MichaelZuo 2y ago
        How is this relevant to Uber's files and computers located in other jurisdictions?
        • jraph 2y ago
          If you do business in France, you are accountable in France. Your problem to provide the asked documents if it's the law to provide them. That you are using computers elsewhere to store stuff should not be any relevant. You shouldn't really be able to have it both ways, should you?
          • MichaelZuo 2y ago
• 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  If you are a little person in the USA, I believe that would be spoliation of evidence.
  • justapassenger 2y ago
    [dead]
  • spellbaker 2y ago
    Ok I'll bite... wtf
  • telotortium 2y ago
    I don’t think any of these kill switches involved deleting data, just temporarily removing access of systems in the affected office.
    • 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      Not a lawyer, but let’s say the cops were searching my house. If I threw the keys to my unbreakable safe out the window, such that they could never be found, I doubt a judge would care for the distinction. That the evidence exists but cannot be accessed is still going to find you in contempt.
      • fossislife 2y ago
        As long as no police has confiscated (in most countries this involves the police man touching it, I bet) the equipment you can break it or make it inaccessibility however you like. It's your stuff, after all.
      • mewse-hn 2y ago
        That metaphor doesn't seem directly applicable to cutting off cloud access. If we're trying for a metaphor that would be a similar situation pre-digitization, the cloud servers containing business documents could be considered head office, and the office being raided would be the branch office. The branch office would continually be communicating with head office for their operations, and that communication would be shut down during the raid. This isn't a great metaphor because the "head office" has become sort of stateless and ephemeral with digitization, but that's part of the interesting question the OP was posing, how does law enforcement collect evidence when that evidence is hosted on cloud servers in nebulous datacenters?
• exe34 2y ago
  you'd think a judge could order you to provide the documents and then jail you for contempt of court until you do?