You can twist a narrative about using an app with 'self-destructing messages' to sound like a malicious act but what's stopping any individual or company from wanting privacy? Wickr is a very popular app, especially among technically-savvy people.
With widespread surveillance and hacking there are a hundred other reasons besides hiding evidence from an IP trial for using an app like that.
Uber's claims the letter from the security employee, who highlighted the use of 'special laptops' and self-destruction messaging apps, was of an 'extortionist' nature and led to him getting a payout. Calling that employee a 'whistleblower' is another potential spin.
Which is why that statement rightfully includes "On the surface...".
Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. And I don't think we should ignore that
You can't accuse GP of twisting the 'self destructing message' app thing when the original source says it was for malicious purposes (you could arguably accuse the original source, except...). I'm also highly skeptical that it is at all legal to use such an app for communications you are legally required to preserve because you are aware of the possibility of a lawsuit.
> Jacobs: Uber's use of encrypted ephemeral systems was dessigned to protect sensitive info and ensure we didn’t create a paper trail that wd come back to haunt the co in any potential civil or criminal investigation. [0]
> Judge quotes Jacob's atty letter: Uber employees went to Pittsburgh to educate the AV group about ephemeral, encrypted communications "to prevent Uber's unlawful schemes from seeing the light of day" [1]
The Jacob person you're quoting was demanding money to not expose such information in an 'extortionist' style attempt... and he did take the money and he did keep quiet. He wasn't some good-guy whistleblower, he took advantage of his inside knowledge after he was fired for personal gain. While then rejoining Uber after the fact and continuing to work there.
In that letter, likely written by his attorney who also got $3 million, had a clear incentive to twist the narrative of using an app like Wickr to make it seem as malicious and damaging as possible.
Uber also went to federal prosecutors with his letter to preempt him from using it for further personal gain. They didn't try to hide from it.
I'm not saying it wasn't used for malicious purposes but I'd take those allegations in the letter with a grain of salt.
So, there are a lot of legit questions as to why Lewandowski was using it to communicate? With whom was he speaking? When and why did he decide to use self destroying communication?
I'd imagine the best practice for hiring a employee that could have a potential conflict of interest or be in violation of an employment agreement would be to document the great lengths the new company went to make sure there was no IP violations and keep records of everything. Though, one could argue that Uber saw value in destroying evidence and create doubting, where the truth would most certainly be damning.
I agree, there are other uses for sure. But, again, you have to look at the full body of evidence.
The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before?
Add that to all the other context of the case, and malicious use is a lot more likely to me.
> Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons.
If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil suit and subject to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I find a hard time making an argument that it's more likely Uber didn't use Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google.
> The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before?
Does every company that switches from one messaging system to another need a nefarious reason?
Also according to the FT what the judge actually said was:
“I can’t trust anything you say because it’s been proven wrong so many times,” he told Uber. “You’re just making the impression that this is a total cover-up.”
If Judge Alsop said "you covered this up" it would be a statement of fact. He would follow that statement with serious sanctions and the lawyers involved in the coverup would be in serious risk of being disbarred.
When he says "On the surface it looks like you covered this up" he is putting Uber and their lawyers on notice that they had better convince him that they did not in fact cover it up or their world will be filled with hurt.
Update: See "Ethics in Discovery: Where the Rubber Meets the Road"[1] page 17
In an extreme example of discovery related misconduct experienced by the Commission, the defendant intentionally withheld relevant evidence through tampering with documents, lodging baseless objections to production, purposefully misleading the court and the parties, and
delaying in responding to permissible discovery requests.
Sounds familiar... and Fry's got hit with some serious sanctions (trial sanctions, not the fines).
Ultimately, the Court struck the affirmative defense to the harassment claim, deemed improperly withheld documents presumptively admissible at trial, ordered a jury instruction that one of the justifications for firing a plaintiff was pretextual, permitted EEOC to argue adverse inference at trial, and imposed $100,000 in sanctions ($25,000 to each of three plaintiffs and $25,000 to the court). In addition, the Court appointed a special master to review and report to the court about defendant’s compliance with outstanding discovery requests.
Right, but the headline isn't "you covered this up", it's "it looks like you covered this up*. The omitted part ("on the surface") doesn't seem to significant alter the statement to me, does it?
"on the surface" is used when you're either arguing the opposite or leaving the door open to being wrong because you know there is more to be revealed.
"it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way.
> "it looks like" can be used in place of a more definitive statement. "on the surface it looks like" is almost never used that way.
It seems to me that what he is saying is, in the absence of some sort of convincing exculpatory evidence or argument that so far has not been presented, it looks like a cover-up. I don't think I agree with your analysis here.
I'm a native speaker and I think you're in the right. "On the surface" and "looks like" have effectively equivalent meanings and connotations, at least for me. I don't see how this headline was at all misleading.
Even if I did work for Uber (I don't) would it change the fact that this headline truncated the original quote to make it sound more controversial? That kind of thinking is what leads people to ignore facts that challenge their preconceived ideas.
