News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade authorities. Parent comment

Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by sushid on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:10PM (#14270077)
I'm no fan of Uber, but if there are LEOs trying to use your product fraudulently (e.g. fake data, ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars), doesn't it make sense to try and stop this sort of operation?

If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by dragonwriter on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:26PM (#14270177)
> I'm no fan of Uber, but if there are LEOs trying to use your product fraudulently (e.g. fake data, ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars), doesn't it make sense to try and stop this sort of operation?

If it's actually fraudulent, then, yes, you should stop it by suing and getting an injunction against the illegal government action.

If it's just enforcing the law that you are breaking, maybe you should quit breaking the law rather than engaging in elaborate technical means to conceal the violation, and expecting that won't cause additional problems when it is discovered.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by pvg on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:23PM (#14270154)
ordering an Uber not for a ride but to impound cars

Enforcement is not 'fraudulent use'. These analogies are very strained while the thing that took place is very simple.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by pyre on Thursday May 04, 2017 @10:40PM (#14270756)
> use your product fraudulently

If a LEO lies to you during the course of an investigation, do you think that you will be able to successfully claim that as fraud?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by JustSomeNobody on Friday May 05, 2017 @08:06AM (#14272763)
If you have committed a crime and they are peering into the windows to see if you are still committing the crime, putting up blinds with the intent to block their view would be obstruction and you'd now be committing another crime.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by johncolanduoni on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:26PM (#14270183)
A blind != a hologram projecting a false image while you do something illegal inside.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by MichaelGG on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:59PM (#14270344)
But even that would be OK wouldn't it? Writing "Flour" on a bag before putting contraband powder in it shouldn't be illegal.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by npizzolato on Friday May 05, 2017 @01:59AM (#14271413)
If you do that with the intention of passing through a checkpoint to hide your contraband, why shouldn't that be a crime?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by Dylan16807 on Friday May 05, 2017 @03:02PM (#14275978)
Why should a bag of drugs labeled "drugs" be less illegal than a bag of drugs labeled "not drugs"?

The labeling can serve as evidence toward the smuggling case without needing to be its own crime.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber faces criminal probe over software used to evade aut... by princeb on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:23PM (#14270158)
no, doesn't really make sense.

that'll be like arthur andersen shredding enron's financial accounts. can't investigate if there's nothing to investigate!

[ Parent | on HN ]