Many people equate standards in criminal law to "beyond any doubt", when the reality is "beyond reasonable doubt".
When you write a program like this, and you can be shown to have executed it at a police raid, _followed by_ a call to your company's general counsel (or in this case to a "special team", "specially trained" to run a program called "Ripley", with the purpose of "nuking a site from orbit") to advise them, the claim that "this is common practice" goes out the window and "we're specifically obstructing a warrant until counsel/whatever other process happens takes place" becomes entirely "reasonable" as a depiction of what you are doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky#Exposing_the_...
TL/DR: police had given the materials taken during the police raids to organized criminals, who used them to fraudulently reclaim $230m of the taxes previously paid by the company.
Actively building a specific system to counter a warrant is probably going to go a long way to prove its obstruction. Uber's less than lawful reputation won't help here.
Some guy in Canada pages a number - as the company training teaches - hen cops show up. That's plausibly not an attempt to fail to comply with a court order. Pretty sure telling your boss your office is being raided isn't an easy thing to prove contempt for, especially if it's company policy in subpoena-able training manuals.
Then some anonymous team initiates a nuke-it-from-orbit sitewide computer lockdown remotely from the US. Where they're quite likely fairly well shielded from Canadian contempt-of-court rulings.
Sneaky.