Uber Tries to Remotely Encrypt Corporate Data During Government Raid [ENGLISH]
This is what is alleged by Revenu Québec in the information that was filed before Judge Jean-Pierre Braun last week, and that La Presse has obtained. Uber sought to challenge this statement before the judge, but has not had the opportunity, we learn in the injunction Uber also presented in court last week.
Search for Uber Canada offices
On May 14, fifteen Revenu Québec investigators conducted searches of computer data to administrative offices Uber Canada Notre Dame. Investigators are looking for evidence to demonstrate qu'Uber Canada is violating the tax law by not collecting GST and QST on behalf of its drivers to UberX.
Around 10:40, one of the investigators found that "mobile devices such as laptops, smart phones and tablets have been restarted remotely" during the seizure. Another investigator, who performed a second term in another office, found exactly the same phenomenon, also at 10:40. "IT systems were handled remotely, we performed an IT asset takeover by putting off considering the urgency and high risk remote data change," reads the information presented to Judge Jean-Pierre Braun.
Also according to the denunciation, the CEO of Uber Montreal, Jean-Nicolas Guillemette said later at one of the investigators "that he discussed with the engineers Technology Uber San Francisco and that they had encrypted the Remote data ".
source:http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-affaires-criminelles/actualites-judiciaires/201505/26/01-4872822-saisie-chez-uber-des-donnees-auraient-ete-modifiees-a-distance.php
14 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 44.5 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9615498
Clearly, it would have been straightforward to replace the link with an automated translation and allow the discussion to continue.
The guidelines don't pretend to be exhaustive.
If your property is stolen and taken without your permission, and you can control it - why aren't you entitled to destroy it?
I suppose it depends on the legality and force of the order to seize; but if it did not include an order to the owner, I posit they were within their natural rights to delete their data.
Penultimate paragraph: "Another investigator, carrying out A RAID in another office..." "Un second mandat" hear means carrying out a second set of orders.