zlacker

These days many tech company offices have a "panic button" for raids that will erase data. Uber is perhaps the most notorious example.

>>ronsor+(OP)
It's sad to see this degree of incentives perverted, over adhering to local laws.

>>ronsor+(OP)
>notorious

What happened to due process? Every major firm should have a "dawn raid" policy to comply while preserving rights.

Specific to the Uber case(s), if it were illegal, then why didn't Uber get criminal charges or fines?

At best there's an argument that it was "obstructing justice," but logging people off, encrypting, and deleting local copies isn't necessarily illegal.

>>ronsor+(OP)
This is a perfect way for the legal head of the company in-country to visit some jails.

They will explain that it was done remotely and whatnot but then the company will be closed in the country. Whether this matters for the mothership is another story.

>>ronsor+(OP)
How do you know this?

>>camina+97
It is aggressive compliance. The legality would be determined by the courts as usual.

>>ronsor+(OP)
It wasn't erasing as far I know, but locking all computers.

Covered here: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-bosses-tol...

>>intras+Fu
> aggressive compliance

Put this up there with nonsensical phrases like "violent agreement."

;-)

>>mr_mit+su
From HN, of course! >>32057651

>>Brando+Gj
Of course they will not lock the data but hide it, and put some redacted or otherwise innocent files in their place.

>>camina+ex
violent agreement is when you're debating something with someone, and you end up yelling at each other because you think you disagree on something, but then you realize that you (violently, as in "are yelling at each other") agree on whatever it is. Agressive compliance is when the corporate drone over-zealously follows stupid/pointless rules when they could just look the other way, to the point of it being aggressively compliant (with stupid corporate mumbo jumbo).

>>camina+97
> if it were illegal, then why didn't Uber get criminal charges or fines?

They had a sweet deal with Macron. Prosecution became hard to continue once he got involved.

>>ameliu+NI
That sounds awfully difficult to do perfectly without personally signing up for extra jail time for premeditated violation of local laws. Like in that scenario, any reference to the unsanitized file or a single employee breaking omertà is proof that your executives and IT staff conspired to violate the law in a way which is likely to ensure they want to prosecute as maximally as possible. Law enforcement around the world hates the idea that you don’t respect their authority, and when it slots into existing geopolitics you’d be a very tempting scapegoat.

Elon probably isn’t paying them enough to be the lightning rod for the current cross-Atlantic tension.

>>ameliu+NI
Nobody does that. It is either cooperation with law enforcement or remote lock (and then there are consequences for the in-country legal entity, probably not personally for the head but certainly for its existence).

This was a common action during the Russian invasion of Ukraine for companies that supported Ukraine and closed their operations in Russia.

>>acdha+pO
These days you can probably ask an LLM to redact the files for you, so expect more of it.

>>pyrale+NL
Maybe.

Or they had a weak case. Prosecutors even drop winnable cases because they don't want to lose.

>>fragme+IK
Who knows.

I don't see aggressive compliance defined anywhere. Violent agreement has definitions, but it feels like it's best defined as a consulting buzzword.

>>ronsor+(OP)
Or they just connect to a mothership with keys on the machine. The authorities can have the keys, but alas, they're useless now, because there is some employee watching the surveillance cameras in the US, and he pressed a red button revoking all of them. What part of this is illegal?

Obviously, the government can just threaten to fine you any amount, close operations or whatever, but your company can just decide to stop operating there, like Google after Russia imposed an absurd fine.

>>Brando+Gj
> but then the company will be closed in the country. Whether this matters for the mothership is another story.

Elon would love it. So it won't happen.

>>ameliu+vQ
True, but that’s going to be a noisy process until there are a few theoretical breakthroughs. I personally would not leave myself legally on the hook hoping that Grok faked something hermetically.

>>digiow+2a1
You know police are not all technically clueless, I hope. The French have plenty of experience dealing with terrorism, cybercrime, and other modern problems as well as the more historical experience of being conquered and occupied, I don't think it's beyond them to game out scenarios like this and preempt such measures.

As France discovered the hard way in WW2, you can put all sorts of rock-solid security around the front door only to be surprised when your opponent comes in by window.

>>camina+g21
Macron's involvement with Uber is public information at this point.

[1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2022/07/10/uber-files-...

[2]: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/le-rapport-d-enquete-...

>>Brando+Gj
It's not illegal to head a subsidiary of a company that did bad things, but I'm sure he will be intensely questioned. If he did something illegal, he may be punished.

>>pyrale+LO1
Thanks for the articles. I'm not disputing that Macron got lobbied for favors.

That said, the articles don't really address the discussion topic whether they committed illegal obstruction DURING raids.

To summarize, I'm separating

(1) Uber's creative operating activities (e.g., UberPop in France)

(2) from anti-raid tactics.

It looks like #1 had some fines (non-material) and arrests of Uber France executives.

However, I don't see a clear case established that Uber committed obstruction in #2. Uber had other raids in Quebec, India, the Netherlands,... with kill switches allegedly deployed 12+ times. I don't think there were ever consequences other than a compliance fine of 750 EUROS to their legal counsel in the Netherlands for "non-compliance with an official order". I doubt that's related to actions the day of the raid, but could be wrong.