SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-don't-have-to-accept-your-business dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow5743
Portland, Oregon, was one of the cities we mentioned where Uber employed the so-called "Greyball" tool. The city has now released a scathing report detailing that Uber evaded picking up 16 local officials for a ride before April 2015, when the service finally won approval by Portland regulators.
The Greyball software employs a dozen data points on a new user in a given market, including whether a rider's Uber app is opened repeatedly in or around municipal offices, which credit card is linked to the account, and any publicly available information about the new user on social media. If the data suggests the new user is a regulator in a market where Uber is not permitted, the company would present that user with false information about where Uber rides are. This includes showing ghost cars or no cars in the area.
The city concluded that, when Uber started operating in the city in December 2014 without Portland's authorization, the Greyball tool blocked 17 rider accounts. Sixteen of those were government employees. In all, Greyball denied 29 ride requests by city transportation enforcement officers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:46AM (22 children)
If Uber yielded to regulators, the company would likely not exist today. At any rate, you'd be unlikely to have ever heard of them. They massively lower barriers to entry in transportation, enable cheaper fare for consumers, and enable individuals a way to make a living (or just earn a nice side income) mostly without relying on anybody. It's a nightmare for establishment interests and consequently the government officials whom they ensure to regularly "donate" to.
Choosing to not serve individuals who's sole purpose in existence is to either remain neutral or interfere with how you would like to operate your business, is not illegal. It's the same reason that no individual should, under any circumstances, ever consent to a search from law enforcement. Having nothing to hide is irrelevant. When you "service" these individuals, the best case outcome is nothing happens. The worst case outcome is you thought you had nothing to hide, but oops you actually violated city code 17263-43. When you refuse to "service" them the worst case scenario, of a warranted search, is the always-case situation in the other scenario.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:58AM (4 children)
So, criminal enterprise, eh? Nice you can call it "disruptive technology", but how is Greyballing any different than yelling "La Migra!" in a crowded sweatshop?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:00AM (2 children)
I'm not sure if that's the most awkward strawman I've ever read, or is just inherently incoherent. Can you string together a more clear statement?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @04:18PM (1 child)
Just because you are having software direct your
illegal employees, sorry, "unlicensed contractors", away from the officials charged with regulating them instead of shouting a warning when Immigration authorities are about to "regulate" all your illegal immigrant employees whom you have no idea how they became your employees in the first place, perhaps you would prefer a straw car analogy, which might be more coherently inherent?(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2017, @10:57PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @05:07PM
Because they are part of corporate America. Executives don't get charged with crimes; they get promotions, reassignments or retirement packages.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ledow on Monday September 18 2017, @11:33AM (8 children)
"Choosing to not serve individuals who's sole purpose in existence is to either remain neutral or interfere with how you would like to operate your business, is not illegal."
Tell a court that interfering with the operation of your industry's regulator isn't an attempted fraud/deception.
"City transportation enforcement officers" sounds pretty official to me. Singling them out for different behaviour for a specific industry service is certainly something any sensible person would want investigated and clamped down on, especially where it concerns deliberately picking them out to provide a different service to the average customer.
"It's the same reason that no individual should, under any circumstances, ever consent to a search from law enforcement."
That's a different matter, we're not talking about a search of a person possibly under suspicion already and capable of incriminating themselves. We're talking about a taxi firm deliberately refusing to pick up taxi firm regulators, to the point of feeding them fraudulent information about how their taxis are operating (literal fraud, before you even get into their "not picking up").
However, "never consenting" and the rest of your sentences imply that you shouldn't consent even when ordered by a court warrant. Which is REALLY DUMB.
If a police officer wants to search, you can refuse consent. Obviously. That's quite simple and you don't have to be an idiot about it.
But it's EASILY overridden and I guarantee the first thing they will do is go get a warrant to do just that using the reason "He's refused consent to search, Your Honour, we'd like you to order him to comply".
Plus... can you refuse consent to search everywhere? I think that's jurisdiction-dependent. In the UK, they are allowed, I believe. They have to do it by the book and issue bits of paper and do so respectfully, but refusal just ends with the same search in a police station anyway.
"The worst case outcome is you thought you had nothing to hide, but oops you actually violated city code 17263-43. When you refuse to "service" them the worst case scenario, of a warranted search, is the always-case situation in the other scenario."
No, the worst-case outcome is that it's brought up before a court that you refused consent, and then something was found on you which you forgot you shouldn't have (anything from a screwdriver to a gun - you could be seen as "premeditating" a crime), and the refusal to search is seen as an admission of knowledge that you knew you were carrying it. You have the right to remain silent, etc. ***but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law*** including "I refuse you permission to search me". You can tell them anything you like. And it will appear as a mitigating factor in court.
"Did you search the suspect when he arrived at the station?"
"No, Your Honour."
"Why not?"
"He refused consent to search him, Your Honour."
Juries and police officers can use that refusal *against* you (not that it doesn't say "for you") if the court so orders, as a contributing factor to your lawful arrest and detention until they have quelled their suspicions that you might have something on you.
To be honest, even violating city code X is something that will go on your record and not everyone can have that even (doctors, teachers, police officers, legally qualified people, etc. themselves).
Just.. be reasonable. It's got nothing to do with "nothing to hide". I guarantee that an officer will look ONE HUNDRED TIMES MORE SUSPICIOUSLY at everything someone does if they refuse a search, or "remain silent", or are just generally a prat. Down to having you for a dodgy taillight that they'd otherwise have just said "get it fixed".
Sure, you're within your right to do the above. But you're also within your right to go silent, or refuse permission, later if you feel uncomfortable. The first is codified in the Miranda wording.
The question is not "do you have something to hide" (they literally CAN'T charge you if you've honestly done nothing wrong, but they can ALWAYS arrest you no matter what you do because that's what arrest means - I will hold you until I can ascertain if there's something I can charge you for. They barely need a reason to arrest at all, really, despite what people might think), it's "do you want to piss off the guy holding the gun who has the legal means - and now, aroused suspicion - to arrest you for anything he likes until he knows he can't prove his case".
In all my dealings with police, I've never seen the point in pulling the "I don't need to" card. And they've always been very reasonable, sometimes overlooking things that they could clearly have words with me about.
One time, a police car was pulling into a traffic line in front of me. He was waiting forever and nobody was leaving a gap. I stopped and waved him out. He shook his head no, waved me in front and then pulled right in behind me. Obviously, whether it was chance or he was waiting for something, he wanted me at that point. My car never looked very nice (dents, scratches, repairs etc.) but was always legal. Further up the road he pulled me over. Asked for documentation. I'd had the car tested earlier that week, so I had all the paperwork in the car.
But we were laughing and joking throughout, me, him and his partner. At one point he said "Well, obviously, you know why I pulled you over," he said, looking at my bumper, "you were missing the mandatory piece of duct tape on the rear bumper for this model of car." A policeman with a sense of humour is more common than you think. As he gave me my documents back, he walked away and then looked back at my rear light, which was cracked. He looked at his partner, looked back at the light, shook his head no, drove off. He could have had me, but it wasn't worth the effort and it wasn't like I hadn't tried to make the car legal (I didn't spot the light myself either, and it must have been done after the inspection!).
I guarantee you 100%, if I'd been true to "my rights", I could have said nothing, make him check the police database (which would have shown the car was on the road legally and passed the same test), not answer most of his questions, been obstructive etc. And what would have happened? Not only would he have had me for the light but literally ANYTHING else he could be bothered to find, I'd have been searched, so would the car (by whatever roundabout legal method). And probably he would have a word with the garage too about why wasn't the car checked properly etc. A policeman's time, however, just isn't worth that stuff. They'll only do it if you go out of your way to piss them off. They have slightly more important things to do.
Sure, you are not REQUIRED to. I'm not required to do an awful lot of things. But they make your life run smoother if you do, so long as everyone plays the same game. For sure if he'd found something more serious than a broken taillight, I'd be politely saying "Sorry, look, I don't think I should be answering anything without a lawyer or something."
I guarantee you, though, that being a prat when talking to a police officer will cause you more personal hassle - even if it doesn't result in charges - than not.
And guess what happens next time the same cop pulls you over and you're as co-operative as anything all of a sudden?
They're human, not stupid. Just be reasonable with them. Hell, ask "Do I *have* to consent to the search? I'm kinda in a rush?". People do. It's quite reasonable. If you think that the worst that can happen is what would have happened anyway, you're wrong. The worst is that that guy mentally flags you up for the rest of your life as someone he has suspicions about and remembers the debacle you made him go through the first time he saw you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2017, @12:00PM (1 child)
The obvious rebuttal is that most such requests for searches will not be followed up with warrants. Lack of consent to a search is not good enough for a warrant.
A completely irrelevant story since he didn't actually request to search your car and thus, you didn't have an opportunity to refuse his request. And what's the "I don't need to" card? You don't need to spend a couple hours putting car pieces back on your car? You don't need to have rights?
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 18 2017, @05:51PM
The obvious rebuttal...
DRINK!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @12:01PM
What is the hassle of checking the police database? It is his job to check the police database. Is he getting paid less for the time spent doing that or something? What difference does it make?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:50PM (2 children)
Do you remember back in 1998 when the US government began anti-trust proceedings against Microsoft? Their major crime was bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Now, nearly 20 years, later we have them selling an operating system that is fundamentally spyware, leading an initiative for "secure boot" which means your hardware will only boot a Windows OS, are positioning themselves to force users to use store controlled by Microsoft to obtain their software, and more. Now not only does our government not care, they're in love with Microsoft.
What changed? They signed up for PRISM [wikipedia.org] and started "donating" an enormous amount of money to politicians, and regulators.
Most regulation in the US is sadly not really about consumer protections. The FCC, which you're certainly familiar with, is a relatively upstanding organization by the standards of US regulators. Did you know the FDA was headed by a Monsanto VP [wikipedia.org]? His groundbreaking case as a lobbyist was arguing that corporations ought be allowed to knowingly include at least a bit of carcinogenic compounds into our foodstuffs. But just "*de minimus.*" Did you know the position he held actually didn't exist before; Obama created it just for him. He coined it the "czar of foods."
These sort of things are typical in US regulation.
---
Fortunately the law is still somewhat more on the side of the individual or business. Refusing to consent is specifically not and indication of guilt in the law. Innocent until proven guilty still means something. Companies can, in general, display whatever they want on their apps. And they can even do much worse than that. Facebook manipulated [nytimes.com] users' feeds in a literal attempt to create emotional distress in some 700,000 users. They did it just to see what would happen. Facebook faced no meaningful repercussions. They're certainly making sure to keep up on their "donations" as well. In any case, having users see different things with your app is not fraud - even if they are unaware that they're seeing different things.
Embracing regulators in the US is akin to inviting a group of thieves to your home, waiting for them to arrive, and then walking out and leaving. I mean surely they'd never do anything bad, because after all the law says they can't! 10 years ago I'd be stating exactly what you are. But as I grew older and started to participate in enterprise, I began to experience things first hand. What you think business and regulation is, and what it really is - are entirely different. Our nation is disgustingly corrupt. I do believe that do believe that government can be a force for good. However, our government is not such a force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @10:50PM (1 child)
No... What changed was that they are not violating anti-trust laws with Windows 10:
1998: Microsoft was using an effective monopoly in one industry (operating systems) to artificially influence and gain control of another industry (web browsing).
2016: Microsoft is changing the behavior of their product. They are not entering a new market in any way.
No dark conspiracy about government surveillance is needed. They aren't violating the law, so no lawsuit against them is forthcoming.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @05:39AM
That's stretching the bounds of even cognitive dissonance.
Every example I even listed was them clearly using their current market dominance to try to gain an unfair advantage in other industries. Windows 10 S take this to an entirely new level where only apps from the Windows Store will even run, behavior they reportedly plan to make an auto opt-in for default Windows 10 which is one of the most absurdly anti-competitive actions in the software industry, perhaps ever. They're even engaging in shenanigans with browsers. Windows 10 is conspicuously unstable when running Chrome. Once the program crashes, Windows 10 automatically and without consent forces the user to begin using Edge. Or things such as "secure boot" which is literally intended to ensure it's impossible for the user to run non-Microsoft operating systems. And data harvesting is quick becoming the biggest industry in existence. And Microsoft has turned Windows 10 into the most widespread spyware in existence.
What they were sued for in 1998 is a joke compared to their actions of today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @10:13PM
I have no idea where you live, but you have no idea of how the US legal system works.
Okay, so now you (1) have a paper trail that they got a warrant, and (2) have perfect grounds for your appeal. The police testifying that "we wanted to search him because he didn't want to" is almost the archetypal violation of the 4th amendment. The appeals court would throw out all evidence from your search. If they didn't, and you'd have the ACLU (among others) begging you to use you as a test case for appellation to the Supreme Court.
If you are curious and actually want to know how the US system works, see this flowchart [lawcomic.net] (written by an actual lawyer). And no, the 4th Amendment and refusing consent is not nearly as easy as Hollywood or High School rumors would have you believe.
Why yes, different countries have different policies.
I'm reminded of the saying that, "rights are like muscles: failure to use them will cause them to atrophy and die." Yes it could be individually annoying, and it may not be worth your fight. However, if everybody always rolled over every time, we are half-way to a police state as then the cultural expectation of privacy disintegrates and courts will stop respecting it.
Yes, you don't need to be and shouldn't be an ass to the police. However, there is a difference between respectfully telling a police officer you are not consenting to a search of a bag as you walk down the street, and swearing that the pigs should leave you alone.
The police are professionals as well, and are also lazy, and have their own schedules and work priorities. If you don't outright offend them, they will typically give you a funny look but then let you go on your way. After all, there are tons of cell phone cameras around now-a-days, and nobody wants to be the next "look at this violation of our rights" video on Youtube.
Now admittedly, everything I said is theoretical, and you can find counterexamples of perversion of justice. That's to say the system was abused, though, not that the system itself is flawed.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @11:44PM
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @12:04PM (1 child)
> If the mafia yielded to laws, the mob would likely not exist today
how is this a good point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @05:09PM
It's not a good point. It's a shot at Uber's ignoring laws like the mafia does.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 18 2017, @05:54PM (5 children)
Choosing to not serve individuals who's sole purpose in existence is to either remain neutral or interfere with how you would like to operate your business, is not illegal.
Yes, it is. Regulated industries always have "must allow investigators" as part of their regulation.
This software proves intent to avoid investigators, willfullness towards any violations, and possibly adds a conspiracy charge to the list.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @07:00PM (1 child)
Please do share the section of the criminal code relating to this. You won't find it because it does not exist. If an OSHA inspector comes to my place of business, I can legally refuse to allow them entrance to my business (even if there was e.g. a recent incident) unless they have an administrative warrant. I do not know why people here are so determined to not only make up laws, but to make up rather draconian laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @07:08PM
Makes it easier to convert people to their libertarian "no gov!" fantasy. Like the people who stretch the truth about abortion and welfare to the point of insanity.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday September 18 2017, @08:02PM (2 children)
Driving is regulated. I have a radar detector and GPS software that warns me about hazards. What have I done wrong?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @11:52PM (1 child)
It depends on where you drive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Legality [wikipedia.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday September 19 2017, @01:02AM
I live in a place that at least pays lip service to the laws of physics... I can legally receive any frequency.
...but you HAVE heard of me.