Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday March 04 2017, @02:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the greyballed-not-greybearded dept.

Uber secretly used software to help drivers evade law enforcement stings:

Uber's annus horribilis continued apace Friday, as it was hit with revelations of a secret program to evade law enforcement, the resignation of another top executive and more allegations of workplace discrimination.

The New York Times reported that for years Uber used a tool called Greyball to systematically deceive law enforcement officials in cities where its service violated regulations. Officials attempting to hail an Uber during a sting operation were "greyballed" – they might see icons of cars within the app navigating nearby, but no one would come pick them up. The program helped Uber drivers avoid being ticketed.

Greyball used geolocation data, credit card information, social media accounts and other data points to identify individuals they suspected of working for city agencies to carry out the sting operations, according to the Times. It was used in Portland, Oregon, Philadelphia, Boston, and Las Vegas, as well as France, Australia, China, South Korea and Italy.

They see me rollin' / They hatin' / Patrolling they tryna catch me drivin' Uber.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Uber Letter Alleges Surveillance on Politicians and Competitors 3 comments

A redacted copy of the letter that caused the Waymo v. Uber trial to be delayed (again) has been released:

At first glance, the Jacobs letter [is] an incredibly detailed accounting of multiple unlawful actions by the ride-hail company. He alleges that Uber's secretive Strategic Services Group (SSG) "frequently engaged in fraud and theft, and employed third-party vendors to obtain unauthorized data or information." He also accuses Uber security officers of "hacking" and "destruction of evidence related to eavesdropping against opposition groups." And he says Uber's ex-CEO Travis Kalanick knew about a lot of it.

Another Uber employee, Nicholas Gicinto, along with SSG, conducted "virtual operations impersonating protesters, Uber partner-drivers, and taxi operators." These Uber security employees went to great lengths to hide their surveillance activities from the authorities, Jacobs says. They used computers not purchased by Uber that ran on Mi-Fi devices, so the traffic wouldn't appear on Uber's network. They also used virtual public networks and "non-attributable architecture of contracted Amazon Web Services" to further conceal their efforts, Jacobs alleges. Who were they surveilling? Jacobs says SSG's targets included "politicians, regulators, law enforcement, taxi organizations, and labor unions in, at a minimum, the US."

And then there was Uber's innocuously named Marketplace Analytics team. Jacobs says this group was responsible for "acquiring trade secrets, codebase, and competitive intelligence... from major ridesharing competitors globally." According to Jacobs, Marketplace Analytics impersonated riders and drivers on competitor platforms, hacked into competitor networks, and conducted unlawful wiretapping.

In one of the weirder sections, Jacobs alleges that Uber's surveillance team infiltrated a private event space at a hotel and spied on the executives of a rival company so they could observe, in real time, their reactions to the news that Uber had received a massive $3.5 billion investment from Saudi Arabia. That eavesdropping was directed by ex-Uber security chief Joe Sullivan at the behest of Kalanick, Jacobs says.

Uber calls Richard "Ric" Jacobs "an extortionist", but the judge in the case disagrees.

Also at NYT and Recode.

Previously: Uber Evaded Law Enforcement With "Greyball"
Real-Life Example of Uber's Regulator-Evading Software
A Spectator Who Threw A Wrench In The Waymo/Uber Lawsuit


Original Submission

The Fall of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick 23 comments

The Fall of Travis Kalanick Was a Lot Weirder and Darker Than You Thought

A year ago, before the investor lawsuits and the federal investigations, before the mass resignations, and before the connotation of the word "Uber" shifted from "world's most valuable startup" to "world's most dysfunctional," Uber's executives sat around a hotel conference room table in San Francisco, trying to convince their chief executive officer, Travis Kalanick, that the company had a major problem: him.

[...] [A] top executive excused herself to answer a phone call. A minute later, she reappeared and asked Kalanick to step into the hallway. Another executive joined them. They hunched over a laptop to watch a video that had just been posted online by Bloomberg News: grainy, black-and-white dashcam footage of Kalanick in the back seat of an UberBlack on Super Bowl weekend, heatedly arguing over fares with a driver named Fawzi Kamel. "Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit!" Kalanick can be heard yelling at Kamel. "They blame everything in their life on somebody else!"

As the clip ended, the three stood in stunned silence. Kalanick seemed to understand that his behavior required some form of contrition. According to a person who was there, he literally got down on his hands and knees and began squirming on the floor. "This is bad," he muttered. "I'm terrible." Then, contrition period over, he got up, called a board member, demanded a new PR strategy, and embarked on a yearlong starring role as the villain who gets his comeuppance in the most gripping startup drama since the dot-com bubble. It's a story that, until now, has never been fully told.

The article discusses a number of Uber and Kalanick scandals/events, including:

  • The #DeleteUber movement following Uber being accused of breaking up an airport taxi strike (which was in protest of President Trump's executive order restricting travel from Muslim countries), as well as Kalanick's decision to join President Trump's business advisory council (and later leave it).
  • Susan Fowler's blog post recounting sexual harassment at Uber, and the hiring of former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder to investigate the claims.
  • The revelation of Uber's Greyball system, which was used to avoid picking up law enforcement and taxi inspectors.
  • Uber's purchase of self-driving truck startup Otto, which eventually led key Uber investor Google (Waymo) to sue Uber, seeking billions in damages.
  • Kalanick's "inexplicable" support of Anthony Levandowski, who he called his "brother from another mother", even after Levandowski stopped defending Uber in the Waymo v. Uber case.
  • Kalanick's apology to the taxi driver Fawzi Kamel, which amounted to a $200,000 payoff.
  • A visit to a Seoul escort-karaoke bar that resulted in an HR complaint and a report in The Information.
  • Uber's president for Asia-Pacific Eric Alexander obtaining a confidential medical record of passenger who was raped by an Uber driver in Delhi, India. Alexander, Kalanick, and others discussed a theory that their Indian competitor Ola faked/orchestrated the rape.
  • Kalanick making his presence known during a "leave of absence" by trying to maintain control over the company and its board.
  • Arianna Huffington promoting her wellness company's products while acting as Kalanick's apparent proxy on the board.
  • The new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi's response to the city of London revoking Uber's operating license.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:17PM (#474884)

    Interfering with a law enforcement investigation? Go directly to jail. No need for an Uber; transportation is provided.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:21PM (36 children)

    by MrGuy (1007) on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:21PM (#474885)

    The company’s spokespeople drew a distinction between law enforcement and code enforcement, arguing that it was the company’s right and obligation to protect its drivers from harm, even if that harm was a traffic citation.

    A corporation has the obligation to protect it's employees* from getting caught by legal authorities?

    Imagine Goldman Sachs arguing "Yes, we deliberately destroyed evidence that our employees defrauded their customers, but we were right to do so because we are obligated to protect them from harm, including fines and jail time for acting illegally."

    This is sleight-of-hand, pure and simple. They're conflating an obligation they probably legitimate DO have (an obligation to do what they can to help their drivers not be abused or murdered) with one they DON'T have (an obligation to assist employees in evading the law) by lumping both under the umbrella of "protecting" drivers.

    * Ah, but note the clever use of the term "drivers!" Because these aren't employees, are they? They're independent contractors, and not employees at all! Uber's made this case time and again. Uber's argument is arguably LESS convincing than the hypothetical Goldman Sachs case, because Uber has even less obligation to "protect" people who aren't even part of the company.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:38PM (#474891) Journal
      They're scum but I can see the distinction they are making.

      Helping them get away with a murder would be obviously wrong (and criminal) but helping them avoid parking tickets would probably not be. Law enforcement vs code enforcement is not a novel distinction to make. They may find they stretched it too far of course, but it's real.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:20PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:20PM (#474933) Homepage

        Speaking with getting away with murder, Uber's Legal Council is run by Salle Yoo, an Asian woman.

        Asian women are known for eating their young and urinating in the city streets, as well as prostitution. She's perfect for San Francisco and making legal decisions with utter disregard of civilized society and its norms.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:45PM (31 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:45PM (#474895) Journal

      This is sleight-of-hand, pure and simple. They're conflating an obligation they probably legitimate DO have (an obligation to do what they can to help their drivers not be abused or murdered) with one they DON'T have (an obligation to assist employees in evading the law) by lumping both under the umbrella of "protecting" drivers.

      So what if it's sleight if hand? There's two very obvious things you miss here. First, Uber had even less obligation to assist tyrannical local law enforcement either particularly since they were not informed of what law enforcement was doing. Grayball looks quite legal to me and the right thing to do. For example, the Portland, Oregon example started because law enforcement was trying to collect information covertly before Uber's activities were even considered a crime. Uber was under no obligation whatsoever to cooperate and cooperation would have just hastened the eventual injustice that followed.

      Second, law enforcement in question was violating Uber's terms of service. Thus, they forfeited access to Uber's services.

      * Ah, but note the clever use of the term "drivers!" Because these aren't employees, are they?

      Good of you to notice. Let us recall that a key characteristic of an employee is that they have to work. Uber drivers on the other hand can start and stop whenever they feel like it. They have no obligation to drive. Taxi business employees can't just show up whenever they feel like it. That's the huge difference between Uber contractors and employees that the pro-labor and pro-taxi sides conveniently always forget.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:51PM (22 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:51PM (#474898)

        cooperation would have just hastened the eventual injustice that followed.

        You start from the presumption that the government was wrong ergo whatever uber did to resist the government was right. Even though the government had literally not done anything yet.

        And you can certainly make that argument, but don't try to dress it up as anything more principled than "the ends justifies the means."

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:23PM (21 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:23PM (#474912) Journal

          You start from the presumption that the government was wrong ergo whatever uber did to resist the government was right.

          I sure did.

          Even though the government had literally not done anything yet.

          Well, then there's no problem with what Uber did in that case, is there? Government violated the terms of service and Uber responded appropriately.

          And you can certainly make that argument, but don't try to dress it up as anything more principled than "the ends justifies the means."

          Bullshit. There's nothing actually unethical about the means, Grayball. Law enforcement can use warrants to get the information they want from Uber. But that requires them to have reasonable evidence of a crime. That is a means that is principled.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:18PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:18PM (#474932)

            > Government violated the terms of service and Uber responded appropriately.

            Terms of service do not trump law enforcement.

            Or are you also willing to support the claim that police departments had to lie to the court about their use of stingray cell phone intercepts because of non-disclosure agreements? [baltimoresun.com]

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:43PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:43PM (#474946) Journal

              Terms of service do not trump law enforcement.

              Why not? In the Portland example, law enforcement didn't inform Uber of their alleged investigation. Uber is under no obligation to priority unknown law enforcement investigations over their terms of service.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:54PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:54PM (#474951)

                Terms of service do not trump law enforcement.

                Why not?

                God you really are aggressively stupid.
                Because we live in a nation of laws, that's why.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:42AM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:42AM (#475069) Journal

                  Because we live in a nation of laws, that's why.

                  Point to the law Uber broke in doing so. For someone whining about aggressive stupidity, you really haven't thought this through.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:52AM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:52AM (#475076) Journal
                    It is possible in some cases that Uber might have knowingly broke laws beforehand. There are a lot of cases where Uber has deployed Greyball. But merely employing Greyball and merely thwarting regulators surreptitiously using the Uber service as a result is not a crime.
                    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:10AM (2 children)

                      by bob_super (1357) on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:10AM (#475084)

                      The regulators need to only employ women, black, disabled, or -better- Jews...
                      They are based in CA after all: "Avoiding the rules (distorting competition) is nasty, thwarting enforcement is pretty shady, but your algorithm clearly discriminates and around here that's a one-way ticket to jail, son!"

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:17AM (1 child)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:17AM (#475185) Journal

                        The regulators need to only employ women, black, disabled, or -better- Jews...

                        They are based in CA after all: "Avoiding the rules (distorting competition) is nasty, thwarting enforcement is pretty shady, but your algorithm clearly discriminates and around here that's a one-way ticket to jail, son!"

                        And that will work why? Uber merely needs to interview in court a bunch of their riders/drivers from those protected classes who use Uber services without the alleged hindrance to show no discrimination on the basis of such happens.

                        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:42PM

                          by bob_super (1357) on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:42PM (#475347)

                          You seem to have misplaced your sense of humor on this particular thread...

          • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:06PM (12 children)

            by Whoever (4524) on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:06PM (#474955) Journal

            Government violated the terms of service and Uber responded appropriately.

            No. Uber asserts that Government violated the terms of service and Uber responded in ways that were not appropriate for those TOS violations.

            Please quote the part of Uber's TOS that the government employees violated.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:49AM (11 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:49AM (#475075) Journal

              Please quote the part of Uber's TOS that the government employees violated.

              Soliciting Uber service for some other purpose than getting a ride.

              • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:04AM (10 children)

                by Whoever (4524) on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:04AM (#475082) Journal

                1. Where is that in the TOS? Please quote the actual text,

                2. I am pretty sure that they were soliciting a ride. Just because they had an ulterior motive doesn't stop that. After all, if I solicit a ride to take me to the airport, my purpose is probably to take a flight, the ride is merely the way that achieve that objective.

                • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:51AM

                  by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:51AM (#475095)

                  I'm kinda surprised Uber wants to be in the business of policing your ulterior motive when solicit a ride. I can just see the lawsuits over Uber enabled crimes claiming they have and have used the tech to stop other things, and therefore needed to prevent that abusive ex from showing up at your door or something.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:03AM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:03AM (#475180) Journal
                  There's more than that [uber.com]. We have first:

                  Restrictions:

                  You may not:[...] ii) reproduce, modify, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, license, lease, sell, resell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast or otherwise exploit the Services except as expressly permitted by Uber; (iii) decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Services except as may be permitted by applicable law; (v) cause or launch any programs or scripts for the purpose of scraping, indexing, surveying, or otherwise data mining any portion of the Services or unduly burdening or hindering the operation and/or functionality of any aspect of the Services; or (vi) attempt to gain unauthorized access to or impair any aspect of the Services or its related systems or networks.

                  This covers soliciting services for other purposes than getting a ride.

                  Account registration requires you to submit to Uber certain personal information, such as your name, address, mobile phone number and age, as well as at least one valid payment method supported by Uber. You agree to maintain accurate, complete, and up-to-date information in your Account. Your failure to maintain accurate, complete, and up-to-date Account information, including having an invalid or expired payment method on file, may result in your inability to access or use the Services.

                  This covers surreptitious attempts to gather information on Uber or Uber drivers using fake accounts.

                  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:16AM (4 children)

                    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:16AM (#475184) Journal

                    Yeah, I didn't think so.

                    You are really stretching to claim TOS violation. Your first point is a real stretch to make that apply and your second point relies on facts over which neither you nor I have any real knowledge.

                    Basically, the claim of TOS violations relies purely on statements made by a company that has a loose connection with honesty and truthfulness.

                    Also, if it is identity violations, what Uber did is not a realistic way to root out and stop people using false identities.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:22AM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:22AM (#475186) Journal

                      You are really stretching to claim TOS violation. Your first point is a real stretch to make that apply and your second point relies on facts over which neither you nor I have any real knowledge.

                      You are saying that. I have already showed that you are wrong. That little phrase "or otherwise exploit" by itself covers the situations I've read so far in the story.

                      Basically, the claim of TOS violations relies purely on statements made by a company that has a loose connection with honesty and truthfulness.

                      So what? The real question should be "Is Uber right?" Here, once again, we have nosy law enforcement agencies trying to covertly collect data on Uber services for the purpose of shutting them down at a future date. Uber has no reason or legal/moral duty to cooperate.

                      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:32PM (2 children)

                        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:32PM (#475297) Journal

                        You are saying that. I have already showed that you are wrong. That little phrase "or otherwise exploit" by itself covers the situations I've read so far in the story.

                        It looks like you have a similar, distant, relationship with facts as the management of Uber. You didn't show me anything "already", since all you posted was bald assertions.

                        In this case, I don't think that the investigators were "otherwise exploit[ing] the Services except as expressly permitted by Uber". The investigators were attempting to take rides, which is explicitly permitted.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:43PM (1 child)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:43PM (#475302) Journal

                          It looks like you have a similar, distant, relationship with facts as the management of Uber. You didn't show me anything "already", since all you posted was bald assertions.

                          Bald assertions from Uber's terms of service.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @10:51AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @10:51AM (#478006)

                            Just because a corporation puts something in their TOS doesn't mean they can do illegal things.

                            I know, shocking.

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Monday March 06 2017, @04:13PM (2 children)

                  by urza9814 (3954) on Monday March 06 2017, @04:13PM (#475672) Journal

                  When did a business providing a service mean sacrificing their constitutional rights?

                  If law enforcement wants to search an Uber, they can get a warrant. You are not required to cooperate with unannounced warrantless surveillance. And Uber has every right to discriminate against law enforcement or civil servants if they want, as choice of employment is NOT a protected class. Nor is evading law enforcement actually illegal. Resisting arrest is, but the drivers weren't under arrest. In fact, there's an app called Trapster that is specifically and exclusively designed to allow people to locate and evade police officers. It is not illegal, and is even officially used and supported by some police departments.

                  I fuckin' DESPISE Uber, never used them and never will, but I despise tyrants even more. Not every word that comes out of the mouth of a government official is automatically law. Offending a government official is not illegal. A code enforcement officer is not a goddamn god-king emperor. They can play by the rules like the rest of us. Especially since they're the ones that WROTE the rules that they no longer wish to obey.

                  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday March 06 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)

                    by Whoever (4524) on Monday March 06 2017, @04:30PM (#475681) Journal

                    Go back and read this thread from the beginning. The topic was whether the government had done something wrong.

                    I wonder what would happen if a company such as Uber wrote a specific clause in its TOS banning people involved in code enforcement from using its service?

                    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 06 2017, @04:52PM

                      by urza9814 (3954) on Monday March 06 2017, @04:52PM (#475684) Journal

                      Go back and read this thread from the beginning. The topic was whether the government had done something wrong.

                      They absolutely did, I thought that part was clear enough in my post but I guess not. Neither side has done anything outright illegal, but both sides are acting unethically. The police are trying to abuse Uber's service in order to conduct warrantless surveillance and trying to unwittingly conscript others into their investigations, while Uber is trying to avoid careful scrutiny of their business practices.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:57PM (7 children)

        by MrGuy (1007) on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:57PM (#474901)

        I guess we'all have to disagree on whether a local authority regulating commerce is "tyrannical". To me, it depends on circumstance.

        I see a reasonable distinction between Uber not feeling obligated to ASSIST regulators and Uber deciding to ACTIVLY IMPEDE regulators.

        It's also not obvious to me that Terms of Service that would violate the law are or should be enforceable.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:23PM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:23PM (#474914)

          It's also not obvious to me that Terms of Service that would violate the law are or should be enforceable.

          Contracts that break the law are without question unenforceable. After all, law is the only thing that gives contracts any power whatsoever. "I would get sued" is never a valid legal defense to breaking a statute, while "They are suing me because I refused to break the law" is always a valid defense in a civil case. There's no gray area here.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:02PM

            by mhajicek (51) on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:02PM (#474985)

            The supreme court of California has ruled that arbitration clauses in eulas trump state consumer protection laws.

            --
            The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:55PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:55PM (#474927) Journal

          I see a reasonable distinction between Uber not feeling obligated to ASSIST regulators and Uber deciding to ACTIVLY IMPEDE regulators.

          It's also not obvious to me that Terms of Service that would violate the law are or should be enforceable.

          Again, where's the obligation to cooperate? Where's the obligation to not ACTIVELY IMPEDE regulators and would-be regulators legally? My view here is that the regulators universally are merely enforcing some nasty corruption and rent seeking. Hence, it is in the public benefit to actively impede these regulators when possible.

          Yes, legality is a different matter. The widespread use of Grayball over so many legal districts in so many countries, may mean that some illegal activities did happen. We'll just have to see what comes of that. But I think Uber was operating on strong moral and public good grounds.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:39PM (1 child)

            by bob_super (1357) on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:39PM (#475037)

            I think we all agree that it was a good thing for Capone's associates to actively endeavor to prevent meddling from tyrannical regulators.
            The clean reputation of the business was at stake.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:40AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:40AM (#475068) Journal
              Al Capone's associates would have been enforcing Al Capone's state-enabled cartel on alcohol products in the Midwest. Not even close.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)

          by Justin Case (4239) on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:09PM (#474965) Journal

          we'all have to disagree on whether a local authority regulating commerce is "tyrannical"

          Isn't that pretty much the definition of tyranny?

          Wasn't the United States created in an attempt to throw off tyranny? And didn't it almost work, except for that fatal clause giving the feds the power to "regulate interstate commerce" which has been warped so far as to give them power over someone growing weed for their own use in their own house. (Because growing your own distorts the market price for interstate weed.)

          You don't have a victim who has been harmed asking the police to help. If you did, Uber would be seeing the victim, not the cop who was called to the victim's aid.

          No, what you have is the cops unilaterally deciding to stir up trouble by searching for someone who has not harmed a victim, but is simply failing to submit to the dictates of the jackbooted thugs enforcing the tyrannical taxi monopoly.

          Those kind of cops, and laws, we don't need, and anything any good citizen can do to oppose the tyrants is a good for civilized society.

          • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:11PM

            by Whoever (4524) on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:11PM (#475008) Journal

            which has been warped so far as to give them power over someone growing weed for their own use in their own house. (Because growing your own distorts the market price for interstate weed.)

            Ah, yes, the magical word "affects", which I cannot see in the commerce clause but the judges of the Supreme Court can.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:30PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:30PM (#474918)

      * Ah, but note the clever use of the term "drivers!" Because these aren't employees, are they? They're independent contractors, and not employees at all! Uber's made this case time and again.

      That is, incidentally, a violation of US and many state labor laws, as recently determined by courts in California.

      IMHO, Uber is a fundamentally criminal organization: They routinely violate labor laws, tax laws, and taxi and car service laws and regulations, all while claiming "We're not a car service, we're a tech company that is disrupting things so it's OK".

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:54PM (#474952)

      On top of all of that. This software could be used as a tool to suppress others. Dont like a particular group. Just shadowban them.

      Greyball is just shadowbanning applied to uber. In this case they do not like law enforcement.

      Now some may like the idea of 'stick it to the man'. But remember those tools can be used against the little guy too.

      This is a censorship tool.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:01PM (#474904)

    And yet they say life's a bitch...

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:51PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:51PM (#474925)

    First, I think that this is being inflated by sensationalism from some and a desire to see Uber fail in some way, shape or form from others. I have no great love for them either. So let's step aside from our predispositions and discuss the technology involved.

    This grey balling thing sounds nothing more than basic protection against nefarious usage of any service. It is the same reason many websites don't tell you exactly why your log in attempt failed and instead display the generic "Bad Username or password" message. A brute force attempt to guess both usernames and passwords would be harder to pull off than brute forcing known usernames.

    More specifically to Uber's situation, they opt to make it appear to the grey listed users that the service is working, just no one is answering (I can't keep using the term that's been chosen). This would make more work for a nefarious actor that has to determine if they have been grey listed and needs to start with a fresh account. In the admittedly hypothetical advent of a real world would be rapist or murderer using the service to shop for victims, they hope to keep them flummoxed and not harming victims long enough to get caught.

    Now there are still questions to ask. Some of which I'm sure the public will never see, as the algorithms and code in question is a trade secret and would most likely be under seal. How does Uber designate users as problematic? Did Uber specifically target law enforcement or have certain members of law enforcement merely been caught by their algorithms? If they can't prove intent, there isn't much of a case here. Remember Waze and users flagging police positions? They'd be in deeper water than Uber in this regard.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:28PM (1 child)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:28PM (#474972) Homepage Journal

      Some of which I'm sure the public will never see, as the algorithms and code in question is a trade secret and would most likely be under seal. How does Uber designate users as problematic? Did Uber specifically target law enforcement or have certain members of law enforcement merely been caught by their algorithms? If they can't prove intent, there isn't much of a case here.

      From TFA [nytimes.com]:

      When Uber moved into a new city, it appointed a general manager to lead the charge. This person, using various technologies and techniques, would try to spot enforcement officers.

      One technique involved drawing a digital perimeter, or “geofence,” around the government offices on a digital map of a city that Uber was monitoring. The company watched which people were frequently opening and closing the app — a process known internally as eyeballing — near such locations as evidence that the users might be associated with city agencies.

      Other techniques included looking at a user’s credit card information and determining whether the card was tied directly to an institution like a police credit union.

      Enforcement officials involved in large-scale sting operations meant to catch Uber drivers would sometimes buy dozens of cellphones to create different accounts. To circumvent that tactic, Uber employees would go to local electronics stores to look up device numbers of the cheapest mobile phones for sale, which were often the ones bought by city officials working with budgets that were not large.

      In all, there were at least a dozen or so signifiers in the VTOS program that Uber employees could use to assess whether users were regular new riders or probably city officials.

      If such clues did not confirm a user’s identity, Uber employees would search social media profiles and other information available online. If users were identified as being linked to law enforcement, Uber Greyballed them by tagging them with a small piece of code that read “Greyball” followed by a string of numbers.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 06 2017, @04:21PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday March 06 2017, @04:21PM (#475676) Journal

        Are city officials or police officers a protected class? I don't think so...so why does any of this matter?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:00PM (#474928)

    * proprietary software
    * social media

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball [wikipedia.org]

    What's not the love about it?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:30PM (#475034)

      Its basically shadow-banning in real life.
      Its a shitty way to treat people online and an even shittier way to treat people in the real world.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @02:52PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 05 2017, @02:52PM (#475266) Journal
    Reason.com had a different take [reason.com] on this:

    What's fascinating about the story is how it fails to identify a single person victimized by the Greyball tool other than the authorities who are unable to operate their stings. Meanwhile, as the story does note, it's the Uber drivers who faced harassment and had their cars impounded or ticketed by authorities, which Uber then had to reimburse. And in other countries, Uber drivers (and passengers) had to worry about actual physical attacks from workers in the entrenched taxi cartels.

    As usual when we see stories like this, the defense always seems to be "Uber needs to follow the same rules as everybody else," and never "Everybody else should have the same freedom as Uber." The story is written with an unquestioned assumption that extensive government regulation of private transit is normal and expected. When I mentioned this sort of bias on Twitter, I got this response from a stranger:

    "That's not media or institutional bias, that's a reality bias. Very few people are ok with inmates running the asylum"

    My response there, as it is here, is that "inmates running the asylum" is "an interesting way to describe ostensibly free human beings."

    Notice the key point. There's no demonstration that anyone has been harmed by Greyball. And most of the world where Uber operates is democratic. Why shouldn't they bypass legally regulations that aren't for the common good?

    This brings up two important points. First, Uber's strategy works in the first place because riders want very much to work around the terrible regulatory systems that have been set up around taxis. And by grabbing substantial market share before the authorities reacted, Uber gains a political base with which to fight this system. Second, much has been said of Uber's seediness and untrustworthiness, but nothing has been said of the systemic flaws in regulatory systems that encourage Uber's sort of behavior.

    There is this peculiar insistence that Uber needs to follow regulations, but no interest in improving the regulations that in large part create Uber's business model.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @10:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @10:49AM (#478005)

    He's asking the society to take notice and decide whether this kind of behavior oughta be allowed.

    https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/uber_uses_ubiqu.html [schneier.com]

(1)