Funny how whenever I read that a company is 'launching an investigation' into something, I interpret it to mean one of two things "We're so incompetent we don't know what we're doing" or, more likely "We're feeding you bullshit while trying to make it seem as though we're actually doing something."
FYI on the term "Greyballing."<p>Uber reportedly has a secret tool that identifies and evades law enforcement, in order to operate in cities that have imposed strict rules or even banned the taxi alternative.
The tool, called Greyball, uses data collected by the Uber app to identify and deceive authorities, as first reported by the New York Times.<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...</a>
This seems like a PR-based defensive move to me, rather that one rooted in principle.<p>This practice has been known for some time (the recent news is not new at all) and has been used to prevent drivers from being caught up in the regulation battles by taking fake fares. This move makes drivers' experience worse.<p>It seems inconsistent for Uber to maintain their position when it comes to undermining/circumventing taxi monopoly laws and also make this move.<p>Is there a broader context or principle that can explain this in a way consistent with Uber's values?