Which book, the lawbook or the ethics book?

The article documents recruiting Lyft drivers by riding with them, which is neither unethical nor illegal. It doesn't document cancelling rides, which would definitely be unethical, and should be illegal.

I thought on HN we call working around outdated or laws we don't agree with "disruption"?

Unnecessary generalization. Disruption may or may not have negative externalities. In fact, many externalities of disruptions are positive.

In fact, disrupt and sabotage are synonyms.

No major thesaurus lists sabotage as a synonym for disrupt. A couple have disrupt for sabotage.

Whose ethics book says hiring employees from competitors is wrong? Pixar's?

Uber ought to be liable to a lawsuit, at least in general for violating Lyft's terms of service with fake accounts on a mass scale.

Along the same lines as the AirBnB spamming controversy, when it was reveled they violated Craigslist's ToS on a large scale to grow their business in the early days.

It's a federal crime to use a web service against its TOS.