Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Real-Life Example of Uber's Regulator-Evading Software

posted by cmn32480 on Monday September 18 2017, @07:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-don't-have-to-accept-your-business dept.

MrPlow writes:

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.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/heres-a-real-life-slimy-example-of-ubers-regulator-evading-software/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Real-Life Example of Uber's Regulator-Evading Software | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 28 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2017, @12:00PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 18 2017, @12:00PM (#569708) Journal

    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".

    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.

    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.

    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

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday September 18 2017, @05:51PM (#569824) Journal

    The obvious rebuttal...

    DRINK!