>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.
> 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.
Maybe.
Or they had a weak case. Prosecutors even drop winnable cases because they don't want to lose.
Macron's involvement with Uber is public information at this point.
[1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2022/07/10/uber-files-...
[2]: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/le-rapport-d-enquete-...
Thanks for the articles. I'm not disputing that Macron got lobbied for favors.
That said, the articles don't really address the discussion topic whether they committed illegal obstruction DURING raids.
To summarize, I'm separating
(1) Uber's creative operating activities (e.g., UberPop in France)
(2) from anti-raid tactics.
It looks like #1 had some fines (non-material) and arrests of Uber France executives.
However, I don't see a clear case established that Uber committed obstruction in #2. Uber had other raids in Quebec, India, the Netherlands,... with kill switches allegedly deployed 12+ times. I don't think there were ever consequences other than a compliance fine of 750 EUROS to their legal counsel in the Netherlands for "non-compliance with an official order". I doubt that's related to actions the day of the raid, but could be wrong.
It is aggressive compliance. The legality would be determined by the courts as usual.
> aggressive compliance
Put this up there with nonsensical phrases like "violent agreement."
;-)
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).
Who knows.
I don't see aggressive compliance defined anywhere. Violent agreement has definitions, but it feels like it's best defined as a consulting buzzword.