Uber whistleblower says company erased data during raid on Montreal offices

Montreal

Uber whistleblower says company erased data during raid on Montreal offices

Lawsuit alleges 'Uber would lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity'

Samuel Spangenberg says he helped Uber remotely erase data on computers during Revenu Québec raids of the company's Montreal offices in May 2015. (Sean Henry/CBC )

A former security employee at Uber says he was part of an "incident response team" that helped remotely erase data when Revenu Québec raided the company's Montreal offices last year.

Samuel Spangenberg worked as a forensic investigator for Uber at the company's head office in San Francisco for 11 months in 2015.

He made the allegation in a sworn statement in October as part of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the state of California.

In the statement, Spangenberg mentioned Revenu Québec's raid on Uber's Montreal offices in May 2015.

After that raid, Revenu Québec alleged that Uber had remotely erased data on the office's computers as soon as the raid began.

Taxi monopoly over: Quebec City, Montreal airports allow Uber

Spangenberg said in his statement that's exactly what happened, and that he helped do it.

'Cut all connectivity'

Spangenberg's statement said it was standard practice at Uber during police or government raids to "lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity so that law enforcement could not access Uber's information."

"I would then be tasked with purchasing all new equipment for the office within the day, which I did when Uber's Montreal office was raided," Spangenberg said.

Spangenberg said that after such raids, data was often subject to "litigation holds" by law enforcement.

He said Uber "routinely deleted files which were subject to litigation holds," a practice which he said he objected to.

'Attempt to obstruct justice'

Revenu Québec has always maintained that Uber tried to block access and delete information during its raid, something that Spangenberg's statement now backs up.

Superior court judge Guy Cournoyer wrote that Uber's conduct during May 2015 raids 'had all the characteristics of an attempt to obstruct justice'. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)

After the raid, Uber tried to challenge the validity of Revenu Québec's search warrants in Quebec superior court.

During that proceeding, Revenu Québec investigators told a judge that on the the day of the raid, smartphones and laptops seized appeared to have been remotely restarted and that data they were looking for was then encrypted from the company's head office in San Francisco.

In a decision released in May upholding Revenu Québec's warrants, Superior court judge Guy Cournoyer wrote that Uber's conduct "had all the characteristics of an attempt to obstruct justice."

Uber tried to appeal Cournoyer's decision in the Quebec court of appeal. The court refused to hear the case. Uber is now trying to have its appeal heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Uber denies 'each and every allegation'

Uber fired Spangenberg in February.  

He has filed a lawsuit in California alleging he was fired based on age discrimination and whistleblower retaliation.  

Court documents said that Uber told Spangenberg he was being fired because he violated the company's code of conduct when he reformatted his company laptop.

In court documents filed in May, Uber said it "generally denies each and every allegation contained in the plaintiff's complaint."

On Wednesday, Uber Canada spokesman Jean-Christophe de Le Rue reaffirmed that denial in a written statement to CBC News.

"We have always said and want to reaffirm that no information has been deleted," he said.

"Following the agreement reached this summer with Revenu Québec, we continue collaborating with them on matters related to our operations in Quebec."

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gNlG3M
via IFTTT

Uber Blames Humans For Self-Driving Car Traffic Offences As California Orders A Halt To Trials.

Transit regulators ordered the company to take vehicles off the roads on first day they were launched without permits in Uber’s home town of San Francisco.

California regulators ordered Uber to remove its self-driving vehicles from the road on the same day that the company’s vehicles were caught running red lights – violations the company immediately blamed on “human error”.

“It is essential that Uber takes appropriate measures to ensure safety of the public,” the California department of motor vehicles (DMV) wrote to Uber on Wednesday after it defied government officials and began piloting the cars in San Francisco without permits. “If Uber does not confirm immediately that it will stop its launch and seek a testing permit, DMV will initiate legal action.”

An Uber spokesperson said two red-light violations were due to mistakes by the people required to sit behind the steering wheel and said the company has suspended the drivers.

A video posted by Charles Rotter, an operations manager at Luxor, a traditional cab company, shows one of Uber’s computer-controlled cars plowing through a pedestrian crosswalk in downtown about four seconds after the light turned red. Elsewhere, a photofrom a San Francisco writer showed one of the Uber vehicles entering an intersection against a red light.

“People could die,” Rotter said in an interview later. “This is obviously not ready for primetime.”

The traffic violations and threat of legal action are a significant blow to Uber in its home town, where the California department of motor vehicles has said that Uber requires permits to test the technology on its roads

Despite that stated mandate from a government agency, Uber declared in a blog postthat it did not believe it needed a “testing permit” to launch self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, arguing that the rules don’t apply since the cars have people in them monitoring movements. 

“Most states see the potential benefits, especially when it comes to road safety,” wrote Anthony Levandowski, head of Uber’s advanced technology group. His post announcing the Wednesday launch noted the Volvo XC90s’ “core safety capabilities”.

In his letter to Levandowski, the DMV’s deputy director Brian Soublet noted that 20 companies have already been approved to test self-driving vehicles in California. 

“They are obeying the law and are responsibly testing and advancing their technology,” he said, adding, “This technology holds the promise of true safety benefits on our roadways, but must be tested responsibly.”

The self-driving vehicles of the popular car-sharing company were first unveiled in Pittsburgh in September. The vehicles have technology that allows them to navigate on their own, though licensed drivers sit behind the wheel and can take control as necessary. 

Annie Gaus, a San Francisco writer and producer, said she was riding to work on Wednesday in a Lyft, Uber’s biggest competitor, when she saw one of the Uber self-driving vehicles nearly crash into her

“The Uber car sort of jutted out into the intersection,” she told the Guardian by phone, noting that she and her Lyft driver were both taken aback. “It was close enough that we were both kind of like, ‘Woah.’ It’s close enough that you kind of react and are sort of rattled.” 

Gaus, who has written about technology and has contributed to the Guardian, said the red-light violations on day one of the pilot seem to highlight how the implementation of the technology in a place like San Francisco may be premature. 

“I don’t think anybody has a good understanding of how this works in a city context.”

An Uber spokesperson said both cars running red lights were not part of the pilot and weren’t carrying customers.

“These incidents were due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers,” the statement said. “The drivers involved have been suspended while we continue to investigate.”

The company did not immediately respond to questions about the state’s order to remove the cars from the road.

It’s unclear how law enforcement may address these kinds of violations. 

Asked how the San Francisco police department would respond to a self-driving Uber running a red-light, officer Giselle Talkoff said: “I don’t even know. I guess we could pull them over.” 

After the Guardian sent Talkoff footage of the Uber violation, first reported by the San Francisco Examiner, she said the police were not investigating the specific incident at this time. But she noted officers would follow up in cases in which there was an injury or if they witnessed a violation in person – though she said she wasn’t sure if the “secondary driver” or the company would be held accountable.

“There was a person that was walking very closely,” she said of the footage, pointing out that a pedestrian was entering the street when the Uber car ran the red. 

Talkoff further noted that there aren’t state or federal laws governing self-driving cars. 

“First comes technology, then comes policy. It’s going to be a matter of setting some precedents,” she said, adding, “The companies that are putting these vehicles on the road should have their vehicles operate with due regard to the rules of the road.” 

A sergeant with the police traffic division said his department was not even aware that Uber had started using autonomous cars in San Francisco. 

Rotter argued that the technology company should be held responsible for sending the vehicles out on the road despite government objections. 

“What this company has done is start operating illegally and push for permission later".

Source :  Guardian News. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hvABPo
via IFTTT

California Dreaming.... Travis Kalanick's Vision .... By Semtext.

Uber were first licensed just before the Summer of 2012. Two years later on the 3 October,  co-founder, Travis Kalanick, attended the Albert Hall no less, to deliver a presentation to 2000 senior moneymen and women, from the City of London. The audience were no fools, and many of them elite members of the Institute of Directors.

The purpose of Kalanick's address, was to persuade the financial elite, that the mini cab firm, Uber, was well worth investing in.

By and large, the audience of shrewd investors, loved him. The 36 year old Californian university drop out, convinced almost everyone that his dream to fill every country in the world with Uber cars, would effectively make owning a car pointless. After his spiel, he received a standing ovation.

Adding weight to Kalanick's claims, Chancellor of the Exchecker George Osborne informed the assembled IOD members, "clearly the economy is growing, unemployment has fallen sharply and business investment has picked up".

The brief was huge, the possibilities endless and the dream was rapidly becoming real. Travis Kalanick's motto was, "Win at all costs", and up until now, Travis has proved that he was and is, no slouch. He is on record as quoting " When I push a button, something in the world will move !"

Arrogant ? Egotist ? Bully ? Over confident ?

Who knows. 

I suppose it depends on where your dollar is invested. 

One thing is for sure though, Travis Kalanick is a very clever man when it comes to getting a few quid, and it would be foolhardy to underestimate a player of his calibre, in any financial arena. One thing he did say at the event though, was that he would aim for 100,000 Uber cars to be in London by 2018.

As I type, I have no idea of how many of the 600 mini cab licences issued EACH WEEK by TFL, are intended for use with Uber cars, but my guess is it would be a large percentage. However, Uber's mammoth targets were not just about raising finance, they also had to overcome many many different rules, regulations, cultures, criteria and licensing. 

Some countries stood firm against the Californian's plans to take over transport responsibility, and banned him immediately. Other countries however, welcomed him in with open arms. Uber's invitation at the Royal Albert Hall that spring day, was to decide if London would take the Californian's dream of perfect travel, or stick with the world award winning Taxi service, that it already had. 

If you wanted to buy a licence to drive a mini cab in London today, the Regulators, Transport For London, would charge you about £250.

If the Californian's dream of putting 100,000 Uber cars onto London's already massively gridlocked streets is anywhere near realistic, that would net TFL an awful lot of dough. In fact, it would earn them around 25 million pounds !

On a cold November morning at 06.40 in 1983, staff at Unit No 7 of the International Trading Estate in Heathrow, were just preparing for a night shift rosta change over. Unit No 7 belonged to International Bullion Dealers Brinks Mat.  Unbeknown to the staff, six armed robbers, wearing hats, gloves and balaclavas, had pulled right outside in a Transit van, and using essential inside information and highly sophisticated codes, made an unexpected and swift entrance.

Initially believing there was three million pounds in the vaults, the robbers poured petrol over the guards, and produced a box of matches. Looking at the determined eyes of the robbers through slits in the balaclavas, the terrified guards were forced to reveal both parts, of a two part code, to access the huge bullion safe. Acting in sheer terror, the guards tapped the codes into the safe's locking system and the firm from South East London, were in ! 

Once inside, the gang were overwhelmed to find that rather than the three million pounds that they had come for, there was instead a pallet full of 7,000 solid gold bullion bars, stored in 70 cardboard boxes. The heist was labelled "The Crime Of The Century" as the baffled Met's Flying Squad revealed that the gang had escaped into thin air, with 3 tons of gold bars. 

The value ?................26 million pounds!

When Travis Kalanick offered to put 100,000 Uber mini cabs into a City that already boasted the best Taxi Service in the world, London Black Cab drivers could have been forgiven for taking the American's plans with a pinch of salt. After all, not only were Uber unable to comply with much of the licensing criteria of a mini cab Operators Licence, but logistically London could no way make room for 100,000 mini cabs ! 

It was a ludicrous suggestion. The streets and roads of London are still cobbled in many places, demonstrating the lack of change and infrastructure investment since Queen Victoria. Roads, streets and alleyways, unchanged since the Hansom Cabs of our forefathers, expertly navigated the capital, just as we do today.

Sadly for my great trade though, and sadly for my wonderful London that I was born in, the temptation of the pallet of gold bars from California, was too good to turn down by Cameron, TFL and City Hall. Licensing 100,000 Uber mini cabs was going against every sound principle of sensible logistics, infrastructure foresight and LAWFUL criteria, totally.

Despite Uber being unable to satisfy certain lawful licensing criteria that would apply to everyone else, the draw of a blag just slightly short of the whole of the Brinks Mat Gold Bullion Robbery amount, would be just too much to turn down from our Government and Regulators.

TFL had to ask themselves many important questions though. 

Such as.....surely a landline wasn't that important? 

Surely we were being over zealous demanding a London Registration Address ?

What does it matter to us if Uber pay either none or the very minimum amount of tax after fleecing London dry ?

It's no problem of ours if Uber are not accurate in what service they are, ie transport or technical services, is it ?

Now come on, a mobile phone is just as good as a Customs & Excise sealed and calibrated taxi meter, surely, isn't it ?

The topographical London Knowledge exam is old hat, for Christ sake! Anyone can safely navigate around London with a half decent smart phone or sat nav, can't they ? 

OK, granted, it will be hard for Travis to recruit 100,000 Uber drivers with no criminal form, all fit and health and upstanding members of society. 

But just ease up on the entry qualification and criteria, let's stop being so over the top, shall we ? 

Wheelchair accessibility ? 

Not to worry, the infirm and disabled will just have to use other forms of transport. It's no biggy is it ? 

Choice of vehicle ? 

No, don't bog Travis down with that. He's too busy, don't keep driving him mad. Let him use any car that he wants. He's not silly. Can't we let him just get on with it ? 

Not registered in the UK ? So what ? Loads of Companies are registered overseas, aren't they?

The potential of the Californian dream of Travis Kalanick will be and is, an enormous detrimental threat to the very existence and heritage of the Great London Black Cab Trade. With extremely strict criteria of licensing, we are indeed very rigorously controlled. It is nigh on impossible to compete on a level playing field financially, if your vehicle, meter, criminal record checks, medical checks, topographical knowledge standard, personal deportment and access of  vehicle wheelchair requirements are written in stone, as your competitor imposters are subject to none of the above. 

Cameron, City Hall and TFL were only too happy to take the whizz kid's dollar., regardless of the professional casualties and traditions it would drag to death with it. The tragedy of it all though, is that Uber were just not needed in the first place. Contrary to what a senior TFL Officer openly stated, it WASN'T what the public wanted ! And neither did London want it ! Does London need MORE Buses ? 

Of course not ! And neither did they need Uber mini cabs ! 

The London Cab trade have managed very well all of these years without them. Mini cab outfits such as Addisson Lee have also serviced customers who wanted an alternative form of transport. Uber were not required. So why were so many LAWFUL breaches of licensing criteria literally torn up and shredded for Uber ? 

Why was the Californian's dream so welcomed and so easily accommodated in the first place ?

We can only assume folks. But my guess is simple. If Micky McAvoy and Brian Robinson had realized in 1983 how easy it was to earn 25 million pounds without upsetting the Flying Squad, then maybe they wouldn't have ended up with a 25 stretch each, after all.

Travis Kalanick was only seven when the Brinks Mat firm parked the Ford Transit van outside Unit Number 7 on that cold November morning at Heathrow. I bet that even at that young age, he would have known that you didn't need balaclavas, hats, gloves and petrol to earn your wages and keep the wolf from the door. An office, a desk, and a smart business suit, were a much more appropriate attire.

It's simply about, what you know, who you know, and persuading them to be in the coup with you ! You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours ! It's really not that hard when you think about it...................is it ?

Be lucky all.

8829 Semtex.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hsyUlK
via IFTTT

Ex-Employee: Uber Stalked Politicians, Celebrities and Executives

Ward Spangenberg is suing Uber. He’s a former information security manager for the ride-sharing giant, and he’s blowing the whistle: Spangenberg claims Uber employees violated user privacy by routinely tracking their whereabouts. Technicians used the proprietary “God View,” and other private information, to stalk high-profile celebrities (Beyoncé, for one), politicians, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, and ex-spouses. And whoever else they so wished to locate and track.

Five ex-Uber security professionals gave further credence to Spangenberg’s story.

The privacy violations date back to 2014, when various news outlets first exposed Uber’s God View — a map that enabled Uber employees to surveil drivers and passengers in real time. 

After joining the small security team in March, 2015, Spangenberg attempted to patch these weaknesses, and “frequently objected to what he believed were reckless and illegal practices,” Reveal reports. So, in February, Uber fired him.

Now, the 45-year-old is suing the company for both age discrimination and whistleblower retaliation, reports Reveal, which is the Center for Investigative Reporting’s online publication. In his declaration, he states that Uber’s security weaknesses enabled people to “track high profile politicians, celebrities, and even personal acquaintances of Uber employees,” which constituted “a violation of governmental regulations regarding data protection and consumer privacy rights.”

He continues:

Uber collected data regarding every ride a user requested, their username, the location the ride was requested from, the amount they paid, the device used to request the ride (i.e., iPhone, Droid, etc.), the name and email of the customer, and a myriad of other data…

Spangenberg included a document collating all the data Uber had harvested about him, which shows the extent of these privacy breaches. He also alleged that driver information was particularly vulnerable, and that Uber would remotely encrypt computers to cover its tracks and preclude any and all government investigations. (“Uber would lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity so that law enforcement could not access Uber’s information,” he wrote.)

Uber claims that it has since made up for these vulnerabilities, but five former internal security professionals disagree. In May, the Electronic Frontier Foundation claimed Uber was trustworthy. After these revelations, EFF may need to reassess that judgment. 

Next time you’re looking for a ride, maybe stick with a taxi or your friendly neighborhood car service. And if you’re an Uber passenger, maybe — for starters — don’t participate in its facial recognition program.

Source : Inverse.com

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hIkZEL
via IFTTT

Even More Disruption On The Way : Lambeth Bridge northern roundabout.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are writing to announce planned improvements to road safety at Lambeth Bridge northern roundabout, which have been developed in collaboration with Westminster City Council. The plans are designed to deliver road safety benefits in the short term while we investigate a longer-term solution for a more fundamental change to the layout of this junction. We intend to start construction of this scheme in January 2017.

The scheme is similar to proposals we consulted on in 2012 and will include the following measures: 

Extending footways and traffic islands to reduce traffic speeds and provide more space for pedestrians
Raising zebra crossings to the same level as the footway on all four junction arms in order to reduce traffic speeds and increase safety
Providing narrower, better-defined lanes to discourage motorists from weaving between lanes on the roundabout 

Following concerns expressed about the potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists during the 2012 consultation, we no longer intend to convert any footways to shared-use space as part of this scheme. 

We do not expect the finished scheme to affect road user journey times through the area. There would be some short-term disruption during construction, although we will do our best to minimise this and will provide local people and road users with advance information to help them plan ahead. 

For more details about the scheme, please visit http://ift.tt/2gyu7jg. If you have any questions about the scheme, please email STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk or get in touch with your usual TfL contact. 

Yours faithfully,



matthew moore signature crop

Matthew Moore

Consultation Team
Transport for London

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gS0rda
via IFTTT

The Curious Incident Of Janet's Street Porters Friend And Mad Dog In The Night !

It's the start of another week with another detrimental article, this time in the Independent by Janet Street-Porter, a lady I've picked up twice before and would've said she was trade friendly, but now I wonder.

The article's about Dads Defending Daughters and an apparent propaganda war against Uber claiming to be a campaign group trying to protect women from Uber rapists but it's really designed to mask the true agenda which is to kill off the competition (She said).

Her argument is so weak and boring it's sad, although her article was in response to an over zealous cabman trying to educate her colleague about Uber rape figures.

She also eludes to the group being a British version of the violent American DDD, which obviously couldn't be further from the truth. As usual John Warboys and David Perry reared their ugly heads as examples of black cab rapists and as usual their was no mention of the cab driver wrongfully accused and convicted of two counts of rape which resulted in him receiving two 8 year sentences to run concurrently. 

I won't name him out of respect for the man's family.

He was an innocent man who had consensual sex with a young "lady" who discovered her boyfriend waiting for her unexpectedly when the driver dropped her home. 

All she could think of to hide her infidelity was to say the cab driver raped her. 

Unable to accept his fate, the poor man took his own life in prison and was subsequently posthumously acquitted after his "victim", wracked with guilt, decided to tell the truth about what had really happened.

Nor did she mention that in some countries rape is a conviction that, on average, is expunged from records after 3/5 years. That being the case a rapist in Slovenia for example, can receive a jail sentence for rape, which ranges from 6 months to 1 year, yet have that record removed after 3 years. 

Similarly, in Bulgaria, convicted rapists are jailed for an average of 2 years and convictions of 3 years or less are removed from record after 5 years. 

A large number of Uber drivers are from Eastern Europe so it's not inconceivable that some could possibly have an expunged record.

If a qualified check can't be made how can TFL ensure women's safety?

They can't!!

That tells me DDD has a legitimacy that must be listened to and given a platform to make themselves heard instead of being constantly questioned by the media, especially when the media should be questioning TFL about the late release of the rape figures.

Every time journalists like Ms Street-Porter write lazy articles like this it makes my blood boil. 

She didn't even have the good grace to contact DDD for comment before submitting her article to print, which is fundamental to the reader developing a fair and balanced view of the subject. 

DDD have written to her explaining where she went wrong and I hope she learns something. 

Time will tell.

Be lucky.

Dear Ms Street-Porter,

I have no idea how to contact you, so this is the best I can do.

I believe I know why you wrote that piece about DDD, and I empathise.

I empathise because a cab driver pestered a friend of yours.

I have had to block that same driver from my phone.

He is an incessant pest.

He is not a part of DDD. Nor do I know anything about the USA version.

My friend and I came up with the name over fish and chips in Whitecross Street.

DDD is not about Uber. It is about TfL deregulating the Private Hire industry to appease Uber. Therefore background checks are not as stringent as they should be. Male and females have been attacked as a result.

Uber are not so much a threat to Taxis, as they are to other minicab companies.

The threat to the Taxi is TfL's mismanagement of our roads, leading to a high volume of congestion. Nothing to do with DDD.

I am not here to apologise for someone else's actions. And believe me, I sympathise with your colleague. Her protagonist is as thick skinned and backward as you will ever find.

You have written your article, which I agree is straight about most things.

We all have to bare the burden of Warboys.

As you know, there are nasty bastards in all walks of life. Seventeen police officers committed rape during this past year. Paedo rings involving prominent MPs, judges, doctors, celebrities, milkmen, postmen, etc.

A Taxi driver was charged with rape in 2014.

It is not about the odd teacher or priest, it is about the scale of rape and sexual assault by TfL licensed minicab drivers in London alone.

Getting into a minicab or Uber does not have to be dangerous. If TfL are backed by this Government to do proper background checks via a minimum of a three year DBS, most of these sexual and physical assaults can be avoided. This is exactly in line with Mayor Khan's wishes.

The scale of minicab rape is backed up by a Metropolitan Police freedom of information application, and acknowledged by Sadiq Khan during his Mayor's Questions by the GLA, earlier this year.

Staggering statistics, I know. It was a shock to us too! This is why we organised Dads Defending Daughters.

I do not have to discredit Uber, they do that to themselves, all across the globe.

Uber will never go away. They will just become another AddLee, when they are regulated.

As for DDD's hidden agenda, we simply do not have one. No egos, no sought after limelight. Nothing other than the desire to inform the public.

The media refuse to acknowledge the problem. Murdoch scuppered the story. The BBC remains silent (nothing new there).

You are not the first to question our motives. And why not? Our aim comes across as obvious protectionism. I can see that. Val Shawcross views us that way too.

I personally do deal in protectionism, but not under the guise of the DDD. The DDD is pure of heart.

We can talk about a corrupt TfL, the 'Great Bus Scam', the CSH, the mismanagement of building sites and roadworks that are affecting and destroying our city and my trade. But that has little or nothing to do with DDD.

I honestly believe Uber has had very little impact on my pocket.

I do not hate Uber drivers. I know they are as much victims of Uber as their rivals. But neither do I feel sympathy for them.

When Uber are toeing the legitimate line, and TfL have been made to take their duty of care seriously, DDD will be satisfied.

Although, I do see a problem with an understaffed and under policed 24 hour tube.

Kind regards,

Lenny Etheridge

Click here for Janet Street-Porter's article.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gEifux
via IFTTT

Moratorium On Private Hire Licenses....Oh What A Tangled Web You've Weaved TfL.