SoylentNews

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

posted by cmn32480 on Monday September 18 2017, @07:47AM   
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

• Re:Interesting move (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @10:13PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @10:13PM (#569953)

  I have no idea where you live, but you have no idea of how the US legal system works.

  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".

  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.

  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.

  Why yes, different countries have different policies.

  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.

  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.

  Parent