| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Uber's use of the Greyball software tool to evade local transportation regulators has happened again within the same organization. The incident involved Uber using the Greyball technology in December 2014 to evade officials in Portland before the service was approved there [59314, 59178].
(b) The software failure incident involving the use of the Greyball software tool by Uber to circumvent regulators has not been reported to have occurred at other organizations. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the case of Uber's use of the Greyball software tool. The tool was designed to help Uber identify and circumvent government officials who were trying to clamp down on Uber in areas where its service had not yet been approved. This design decision led to the software being used to evade regulators and operate in locations where it was not authorized, contributing to the software failure incident [59314, 59178].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase occurred when Uber actually used the Greyball software tool to evade transportation regulators. Despite the company acknowledging the software and prohibiting its use for this purpose after it was revealed by the New York Times, the operation of the tool in circumventing government officials led to negative publicity and triggered a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice [59314, 59178]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident involving Uber's use of the Greyball tool was primarily due to contributing factors that originated from within the system. The Greyball software tool was developed internally by Uber to identify and circumvent government officials and regulators who were trying to restrict Uber's operations in areas where it had not yet been approved [59314, 59178]. The tool was used to prevent fraud and safeguard drivers, but it was also employed to evade local officials who could potentially penalize Uber or prevent it from operating [59314, 59178]. The technology was part of a broader Uber system called Violation of Terms of Service, which analyzed various data points to determine the legitimacy of ride requests [59314, 59178].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident involving Uber's Greyball tool also had contributing factors that originated from outside the system. External factors such as government regulations, investigations by transportation officials, and media exposure played a significant role in uncovering the use of the Greyball tool and triggering the criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice [59314, 59178]. The incident received extensive negative publicity and scrutiny from external entities, which further escalated the situation for Uber [59314, 59178]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The software tool "Greyball" was used by Uber to identify and circumvent government officials trying to clamp down on Uber in areas where its service had not yet been approved [59314, 59178].
- Greyball obscured the real location of Uber cars in various circumstances, including the possibility of physical threats or merely to test new features [59314, 59178].
- The program was part of a broader Uber system that analyzed credit card, device identification, location data, and other factors to predict the legitimacy of ride requests [59314, 59178].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- Uber acknowledged the use of Greyball to evade regulators and prohibited its use for this purpose after the New York Times revealed its existence [59314, 59178].
- The Greyball technique was used against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars, or prevent Uber from operating [59314, 59178].
- Uber used the Greyball technology in December 2014 while operating without approval, citing concerns about its driver-partners being penalized financially [59314, 59178]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- There is no information in the provided articles indicating that the software failure incident was due to contributing factors originating in hardware. Therefore, it is unknown.
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The software failure incident in the articles is related to Uber's use of a software tool called "Greyball" that helped the company evade local transportation regulators by identifying and circumventing government officials [59314, 59178].
- Uber acknowledged the software tool and mentioned that it was used to prevent fraud, safeguard drivers, and check ride requests [59314, 59178].
- The software tool analyzed various data points to predict the legitimacy of ride requests and was used to protect drivers from harm [59314, 59178].
- The Greyball software was also used against suspected local officials to avoid fines and prevent Uber from operating in certain areas [59314, 59178].
- The software incident led to a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, indicating that the failure was due to contributing factors originating in software [59314, 59178]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles is related to a malicious objective. Uber's use of the software tool "Greyball" was aimed at helping its drivers evade local transportation regulators by identifying and circumventing government officials who were trying to clamp down on Uber in areas where its service had not yet been approved [59314, 59178]. The software was used to prevent fraud and safeguard drivers but was also employed against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars, or otherwise prevent Uber from operating [59314, 59178]. The system went beyond what was suggested by Uber's terms of service and involved mining credit card information and checking social media profiles to assess the likelihood that the person was in law enforcement [59314, 59178]. The incident led to a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice [59314, 59178]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident:
- The software failure incident involving Uber's use of the Greyball tool was primarily due to poor decisions made by the company.
- Uber used the Greyball software tool to identify and circumvent government officials who were trying to regulate Uber in areas where its service had not yet been approved, such as Portland, Oregon [59314, 59178].
- The company acknowledged that the program was created to check ride requests to prevent fraud and safeguard drivers but was also used to evade regulators and obstruct their inquiries [59314, 59178].
- Uber's aggressive approach and decision to use the Greyball tool against suspected local officials, going beyond what was suggested by its terms of service, ultimately led to the software failure incident [59314, 59178]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the articles. Uber's use of the software tool "Greyball" to evade local transportation regulators was a deliberate action taken by the company. The tool was developed and utilized to identify and circumvent government officials trying to clamp down on Uber in areas where its service had not yet been approved. This action was not accidental but a deliberate decision made by the company to bypass regulations and gain an unfair advantage ([59314], [59178]).
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not evident in the articles. The use of the Greyball software tool by Uber to evade regulators was a purposeful and intentional act rather than an accidental introduction of contributing factors. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to Uber's use of the Greyball software tool can be categorized as a temporary failure. The incident involved the use of the Greyball tool to evade local transportation regulators in areas where Uber's service had not yet been approved. Uber acknowledged the use of the software but prohibited its use for this purpose after the New York Times revealed its existence in March [59314, 59178]. The temporary nature of the failure is evident from the fact that Uber stopped using the Greyball tool for circumventing government officials once the issue was exposed, indicating that the failure was due to specific circumstances and not a permanent issue. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident related to Uber's use of the Greyball tool did not involve a crash where the system lost state and did not perform any of its intended functions [59314, 59178].
(b) omission: The software failure incident involved omission where the system omitted to perform its intended functions at instances, specifically in evading government officials and denying them rides [59314, 59178].
(c) timing: The software failure incident did not involve timing issues where the system performed its intended functions correctly but too late or too early [59314, 59178].
(d) value: The software failure incident did involve a failure related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly, such as using Greyball to evade regulators and deny rides to officials [59314, 59178].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [59314, 59178].
(f) other: The software failure incident involved other behaviors not covered by the options, such as using the Greyball tool for purposes beyond fraud prevention and driver safety, including evading regulators and obstructing inquiries [59314, 59178]. |