Re:L.A. temporarily suspends Uber’s permit to rent out elect...
by AlexandrB on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:36AM
(#21442001)
This weird paranoia about the government acting with no consequence seems to never extend to 2nd or 3rd layer thinking. If the government could send a team of armed me to kick down your door at 3am and forcibly confine you to a cell with no due process, they could do the same to the CEO of Uber to get your information in the first place. Having a layer of indirection in the form of a private company is little-to-no protection against a despotic regime. It only works if the government is still following the rule of law themselves.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:L.A. temporarily suspends Uber’s permit to rent out elect...
by thumb on Monday November 04, 2019 @10:35AM
(#21442561)
the point is:
- the government would be knocking down the door of a CEO who may not necessarily have the type of data they're looking for.
- the government would have to go through a ton of effort to get anything they needed, rather than having it all up front to begin with.
- no data should be given up freely without direct, fair consent (no matter who demands it)
Re:L.A. temporarily suspends Uber’s permit to rent out elect...
by Nasrudith on Monday November 04, 2019 @03:15PM
(#21445975)
It makes perfect sense in a cynical way - the government would face way more backlash if they went after the CEO of Uber as opposed to a probable nobody like you in the sense that "you are unlikely to cause major consequences which threaten their aparatus of power".
If they made a habit of doing that without a serious trail of justification under the law capital flight would be historic - damaging their income and GDP/the source of economic power, and damaging stability. It isn't even anything overtly sinister - just sensing that given the peril it is time to get the hell out of there.
And that is without lobbying and soft power aren't available.