undefined | Better HN

0 pointsYetAnotherNick1y ago0 comments

Why should it be illegal? Isn't it akin to "right to remain silent"? Why the need to present any information to police unless it is asked by court. Assuming that they didn't delete the data, just moved it to somewhere safe where it couldn't directly be taken away.

We had a raid in one of my previous company due to copyright violation due to a user uploaded content. Authorities came in to take in all the codebase, reports and even employee devices. Basically once given court permission, police would try to collect all the unrelated things which could be taken in the permission, so that they could extort you later.

0 comments

LunaSea1y ago

It can be destruction of evidence, which is illegal.

_bin_1y ago

Denying access to data that could still be specifically subpoenaed isn't destruction of evidence, it's a normal security measure. They still have the warrant to search everything in the office, but not the right to use those computers to access uber's entire worldwide infrastructure.

I have no idea what french law says about it but I think it's morally fine and don't care that uber did it.

2 more replies

staticautomatic1y ago

Unless it wasn’t destroyed, in which case it might be interring with an investigation, which is probably also illegal in France.

1 more reply

chollida11y ago

Because the government already has a warrant to obtain this evidence(they can't raid the office otherwise) and you as the company pushing this button are failing to turn over that evidence.

charlieyu11y ago

I guess locally encrypted files in my computer is a problem as well then

1 more reply

electrozav1y ago

And if raids are court ordered?

dh20221y ago

I assume when the office was raided there was a warrant that would give police the right to inspect and seize property...

spacemanspiff011y ago

My impression was that they were trying to get remote access to ubers US servers/infrastructure/data?

Might be wrong...

sensanaty1y ago

Presumably the French police aren't randomly deciding on a Tuesday for no reason to check the company for proof of them being tax cheats without some court somewhere requesting it, but even if they were, we're talking about a company here, not a person. A person has the right to remain silent, it doesn't make sense for a company to have that same right.

And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me, they paid off some politician (who just so happens to wield the most power in the whole country) to pressure him to get them to stop their investigation into their illegal acts? In what universe could that 2nd sentence be construed as anything other than slimy, corrupt behavior?

YetAnotherNickOP1y ago

> And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me

Why did you conclude that?

There were some user uploaded pirated content in our platform. As far as I know, some media company won approval by some judge for a raid to discover the extent of piracy. It's just in the police rulebook to get everything during the raid where there could be pirated content, including employees laptops.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

LunaSea1y ago

It can be destruction of evidence, which is illegal.

_bin_1y ago

I have no idea what french law says about it but I think it's morally fine and don't care that uber did it.

2 more replies

staticautomatic1y ago

Unless it wasn’t destroyed, in which case it might be interring with an investigation, which is probably also illegal in France.

1 more reply

chollida11y ago

Because the government already has a warrant to obtain this evidence(they can't raid the office otherwise) and you as the company pushing this button are failing to turn over that evidence.

charlieyu11y ago

I guess locally encrypted files in my computer is a problem as well then

1 more reply

electrozav1y ago

And if raids are court ordered?

dh20221y ago

I assume when the office was raided there was a warrant that would give police the right to inspect and seize property...

spacemanspiff011y ago

My impression was that they were trying to get remote access to ubers US servers/infrastructure/data?

Might be wrong...

sensanaty1y ago

YetAnotherNickOP1y ago

> And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me

Why did you conclude that?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse