>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 4 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]