| ▲ | ronsor 5 hours ago |
| These days many tech company offices have a "panic button" for raids that will erase data. Uber is perhaps the most notorious example. |
|
| ▲ | wasabi991011 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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... |
|
| ▲ | caminante 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >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. |
| |
| ▲ | pyrale 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Maybe. Or they had a weak case. Prosecutors even drop winnable cases because they don't want to lose. |
| |
| ▲ | intrasight 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is aggressive compliance. The legality would be determined by the courts as usual. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > aggressive compliance Put this up there with nonsensical phrases like "violent agreement." ;-) | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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). |
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | BrandoElFollito 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of course they will not lock the data but hide it, and put some redacted or otherwise innocent files in their place. | | |
| ▲ | acdha an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | amelius an hour ago | parent [-] | | These days you can probably ask an LLM to redact the files for you, so expect more of it. |
| |
| ▲ | BrandoElFollito an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | politelemon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's sad to see this degree of incentives perverted, over adhering to local laws. |
|
| ▲ | mr_mitm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How do you know this? |
| |
