Uber's Investigators Admit To Lying While Digging Up Dirt On Legal Foes (theverge.com) 57
Andrew J . Hawkins, writing for The Verge: Ergo, the secretive, CIA-linked firm that was paid by Uber to investigate the plaintiff in one of the ride-hail startup's many lawsuits, has now admitted to lying and illegally recording phone calls during its probe, according to Law360. Lawyers for Ergo owned up to the infractions in oral arguments in court Thursday, drawing a rebuke from the judge overseeing the case. Last December, Spencer Meyer filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, alleging a scheme to fix prices in violation of antitrust laws. The same day, Uber hired Ergo to investigate Meyer out of concern he posed a security risk to Kalanick. But Ergo also gathered information on Meyer's lawyer, a move that some critics say went too far. Ergo's lawyer argued that the firm was unaware the investigation was tied to a lawsuit, even while admitting Ergo's investigator "dissembled and used false pretenses in his duties," Law360 said.
Haven't we learned about Uber yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Private investigators using false pretenses!?!? (Score:2)
But OMG this is a -private investigator- using false pretenses on the phone! I've -never- heard of a PI who is calling confirm employment history ever saying "this is Ray from National Finance", or "friending" the subject on Facebook while listing the subject's high school as their own, as though they went to the same high school. I certainly never did any of that when I was a PI, or heard of any other PI using false pretenses.
Except of course for most the cases we worked. That's what PIs do.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking. Why would a judge rebuke anyone for this? This is pretty much the entirety of investigative work. Not just private investigators either. Police will lie to get the information they are looking for, whether in promising to go to bat with the D.A. or in claiming to be a prostitute during a sting operation.
I must be missing something, because that's the norm in investigative work. Skip tracers routinely use "social engineering" to track down debtors. You don't call up mom and
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. My mom would turn me in.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking. Why would a judge rebuke anyone for this?
The judge was most likely rebuking him for the illegally-recorded phone calls. Possibly other things as well, but definitely that.
Lying is not generally illegal, but in certain situations it may violate the law or professional ethics. Trying to violate attorney-client privilege may not be illegal (not a lawyer), but a judge isn't going to look kindly on the endeavor.
I doubt anyone expects a PI to get results without dissembling.
Re: (Score:1)
It depends on who you're doing the pretexting to. If you're lying while digging up dirt on journalists, heaven help you!
Several CEOs and complete turnovers of HP's board of directors back, their Chairman hired PI's to investigate leaks of acquisition rumors to the press. Those PI's lied to the phone company to find out who was making the calls to journalists. One thing led to another and the Chairman lost her job, the CEO was hauled in front of a Congressional hearing, the company's bigshot Silicon Val
honesty (Score:4, Insightful)
Honesty is for commoners. Law enforcers and similar running dogs of the oligarchy are expected and encouraged to lie whenever expedient.
Re: honesty (Score:1)
We know you posted this. Now we're going to punish you even more!
Re:honesty (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.
What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?
Really? I've always liked Uber as a service and as a general concept. But I've long thought the execs were amoral scumbags. I'd imagine many people tend to change their minds about Uber after learning more about their executives. And from what I recall, Uber has been rather polarizing for quite a while here on /.
Re: honesty (Score:1)
Sure, I like the concept of ride sharing. But we all know that is not what Uber does. That driver was not going anywhere until the app prompted him/her to.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I've always liked Uber as a service and as a general concept. But I've long thought the execs were amoral scumbags. I'd imagine many people tend to change their minds about Uber after learning more about their executives. And from what I recall, Uber has been rather polarizing for quite a while here on /.
The problem is that the owners of the big Taxi services are also amoral scumbags. You can't root for them, either. Meanwhile, Uber provides a substantially superior service. So, what are you going to do? Take a Taxi owned by a shitbag as protest against Uber shitbags, and have an inferior experience in the bargain?
Re:honesty (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.
What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?
Anyone who's been around here long enough remembers how we all felt about M$ back in the day, and the removal of shackles that Linux and OSS represented (both to that and to the traditional Unixes), and for a long time crowd-sourced [anything] was seen as an inherent good by analogy. Hell, it worked for everything else!
Fetishizing data collection (knowledge!) and rapidity (disruption!) over philosophic understanding is bad, but that's basically all of the larger tech industry right now, *especially* those to dumb/stupid/oblivious/young to know their history and who haven't taken enough critical thinking and theory of knowledge courses.
a) Uber intentionally breaks the law first and asks questions later
b) Uber's success comes from the breaking of the laws relating to taxicab services and employment
c) Uber's fucking evil. They spy on political enemies and journalists they don't like.
We tried unregulated taxicabs in America. We decided to regulate them because of external factors (strange people; crime; discrimination; pricing). If the taxi companies were deregulated as well, then I suppose they could fight fairly, but Uber's winning only because of that, and then abusing its IC workforce in the courts. They're everything that's wrong with the "gig economy" that millennials are convincing themselves is somehow a good.
Re: (Score:2)
> b) Uber's success comes from the breaking of the laws relating to taxicab services and employment
And to add to the latter half of that a little more, Uber had grandly proclaimed that their drivers would make good money, whereas the data now being seen would suggest working at McDs would be more lucrative.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that many of the problems with taxicabs (using the term to mean hackney cab: those taxis that can be hailed) stem from the necessary regulation mutating into protectionism for the incumbents. The ridiculous cost for medallions in most cities translates into higher taxi ride prices and dirty vehicles.
There will come a time when Uber will favor regula
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe. I was in Ecuador a couple years ago, and they have a completely unregulated taxi/minibus industry (and very little public transport), and as a result it has a lot of problems. For example, the bus may show up at 6:30am everyday, or not. It may go the same route everyday, or not. The driver may decide to charge the same price today, or not. You may have already paid the driver to take you to a particular place, but they decide they don't want to go to that part of town today, and so kick you out miles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot used to be very pro-uber.
What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?
I think the Uber CEO is an immature idiot, but that doesn't mean that I've changed my views about Uber or Lyft.
I love both services. I kind of wish Lyft would win in the end. Lyft is far more ethical in my mind. But I would take Uber over any current taxi system out there.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot used to be very pro-uber. What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?
Why is there a contradiction?
Take Apple for instance, I can still love Apple (under Steve Jobs), but still think that Steve Jobs was a horrible human being for treating Steve Wozniak, his daughter, and some of his employees, the way that he did.
And no, I don't mean to compliment the CEO of Uber by comparing him to Steve Jobs. Unlike Steve Jobs, the CEO of Uber is actually a big liability to his company.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot used to be very pro-uber. What happened? Is this the result of the new owners? Are people's opinions so easily swayed? Is this a case of not thinking it through originally?
Same thing that usually happens, you make this new and "flat" power structure then it turns out there's actually a few people/companies with a lot of power or making a lot of money anyway. Before artists had to deal with a few big labels, then they had to deal with a few big stores like iTunes now they have to deal with a few big streaming services like Spotify. Love Wikipedia, hate Jimmy Wales. Love Ubuntu, hate Mark Shuttleworth. Love Red Hat, hate Lennart Poettering. Break Microsoft's monopoly, get the A
It's not about honesty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer. If you worked hard and played by the rules your employer would take care of you and let you have an OK life and die reasonably content.
There's several things to note here. First, I doubt Uber perceives things the same way. If they perceive the "perceived social contract" differently, then what's to say that your perception of it is better than theirs? I doubt most people involved with Uber think of it as a cradle to grave service and hence, don't perceive this alleged contract. Maybe you shouldn't either?
Nor has this perceived contract existed for the entirety of humanity's existence. I feel this is just like claiming that Valentine's D
You're just not thinking of it in those terms (Score:2)
And when did I mention human history? If you wanna go back further life was nasty, brutish and short. We had 1200 years of dark ages when there was literally no human progress so that a luc
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase you're looking for is "Job Creators". That's what the 1% call the social contract. It's a different slant on the narrative (a right wing one as opposed to a left wing one) but it's effectively the same base narrative. To wit: If you work hard and play by the rules you'll do good.
Sorry, you're the only one here spinning tales. I merely pointed out that your "narrative" was deeply broken. I don't care who you plan to blame for it.
That they're not following the contract is readily demonstrable. Again, this has nothing to do with reality. This is a narrative. Uber pays about $12/hr with no benefits after accounting for the cost of a vehicle. Less if you're city's median income is lower. You can't buy a house, pay for a child's college or save for retirement with that. You can google the statistics to prove that. I can't be arsed right now.
Uber doesn't follow an imaginary contract by imaginary villains in an imaginary narrative? Do tell!
As to your other claim, money is still fungible, even if it comes from Uber. You can indeed buy a house, pay for a child's education, or save for retirement with that money just like any other money you happen to earn.
The point is we're being fed a load of old bull. We're being tricked. The gains the working class made (and fought and died for) are being taken away and we're gradually slipping into a new dark age. Thanks a lot.
A "dark age" which, let us note, involve
Thanks for agreeing with me (Score:2)
Again, the claim isn't debatable. Any honest economist will tell you $12/hr isn't enough for those things. Take note of what I choose to list. It's all things that relate to long term economic security. Again, go do so
Re: (Score:2)
The point is we as a society let them get away with murder in service to that narrative.
If it's actual murder rather than imaginary murder, then there are laws for that. You have to have some sort of intent to kill and of course, the actual killing of a person to go with that. OTOH, if you just want to kill rich people without regard for due diligence or law, then that is murder.
Again, the claim isn't debatable. Any honest economist will tell you $12/hr isn't enough for those things. Take note of what I choose to list. It's all things that relate to long term economic security. Again, go do some googling. Read the fark politics tab for a few weeks. It'll do you some good to find out how awful the world really is for 90% of the human race.
There are several flaws with your argument. First, $12 per hour is quite a bit of money especially when coupled with other income. At full time, that's $24k per year which is plenty for the various "long term economic
You're just being silly now (Score:2)
Again, $12/hr is not quite a bit of money. Spend some time on google looking at prices across the country. Ask yourself what it costs to raise a child (something most of society agrees anyone should be able to do). Look up what even an 800 sq/ft home costs, let alone a 1200 sq/ft home.
What _preceeded_ the Dark Ages was the collapse of Rome. What _caused_ them was conservativism used to prev
Re: (Score:2)
It was completely clear from context I was speaking metaphorically.
And it's clear from context, that I thought your metaphor was overblown puffery with no place in a rational discussion by looking at it logically rather than with touchie feelie metaphor.
Again, $12/hr is not quite a bit of money.
It doesn't have to be a lot of money. The expenses you mention shouldn't be that expensive in the first place. It's not Uber's place to fix that either.
And finally, what's the point of this observation? Even if we were to accept that these items need to be as expensive as they are, it still doesn't change that your labor
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you the same thing I tell everybody else: Go Read "A people's history of the United States". Read some Gore Vidal too while you're at it. Listen to what Bill Nye tells adults when the kids aren't around. You and people like you are dragging us all down. If that's you're goal (e.g. if you're a shill for the 1%) Bravo Sir, you're doing a fine job. But if you have the slightest bit of human decency in you stop being foolish.
And in rebuttal, I direct you to this link [nasa.gov]. Some aspects of humanity's enormous progress in the recent past can't be hidden by naked propaganda and fools. Here, the lighting of the night is one of the most noticeable human activities from space. And it depends on growing human wealth. You can't have light without the technology to make light, the considerable infrastructure to manufacture and support those light sources, and the people wealthy enough to have such outdoor light sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer.
Uber didn't do this. It was already broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber like airbnb provides an easy mechanism for all manner of discrimination, from race to LGBT to disabled. Personally I think one of the reasons so many people (white) like uber is they get white drivers instead of immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EVERY comment I have heard that lists the state of taxis makes some comment about the nationality of the driver. Every single one.
It's quite relevant in many cases. I want someone who understands my language, and who I can understand.
Whenever Uber hits the news, (Score:2)