Uber’s Greyball Scandal: When Software Ethics Hit the Road

In early 2017, Uber found itself in hot water when The New York Times revealed the company had been using a secret software tool called “Greyball” to systematically evade law enforcement in cities where its service faced regulatory challenges. The scandal highlighted a troubling intersection of technology and ethics that continues to resonate in today’s conversations about tech accountability.

What Was Greyball and How Did It Work?

Greyball was part of Uber’s broader “Violation of Terms of Service” (VTOS) program, which was originally designed to protect drivers from potentially dangerous riders. However, the company repurposed this technology to identify and avoid government officials attempting to catch Uber operating illegally.

The software employed several sophisticated techniques:

•             Geofencing: Creating digital boundaries around government buildings and monitoring app usage in those areas

•             Data mining: Cross-referencing user information against indicators of government affiliation

•             Device tracking: Identifying phones likely used in sting operations

•             Deception: Showing “ghost cars” to targeted users or displaying no cars at all

When Greyball identified someone suspected of being a regulator or law enforcement officer, it would serve them a fake version of the app where cars appeared but never arrived, effectively preventing officials from gathering evidence of Uber’s operations in prohibited areas.

This tactic worked remarkably well. In Portland, Oregon, where Uber launched illegally in 2014, transportation enforcement officers repeatedly tried and failed to hail rides because they had been secretly “Greyballed”.

The Ethics Problem

The Greyball saga represents a classic case of technological capability outpacing ethical consideration. When examined through the lens of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics, Uber’s actions raised several red flags:

Public Interest: Software engineers are expected to act consistently with the public interest. By deliberately circumventing regulations designed to protect public safety and fair competition, Uber prioritized corporate growth over community standards.

Honesty and Transparency: The code emphasizes that engineers should “be fair and avoid deception” in professional work. Greyball was fundamentally deceptive, showing false information to specific users based on profiling techniques.

Professional Responsibility: Engineers are urged to maintain integrity even when faced with employer pressure. Some Uber employees reportedly expressed concerns about whether Greyball was legally and ethically acceptable, highlighting the tension between professional ethics and corporate culture.

As technology ethics expert Casey Fiesler points out in her research on ethics education in computing, “Technical skills without ethical consideration can lead to harmful innovations, no matter how clever the solution.”

Multiple Perspectives

When the Greyball story broke, reactions varied dramatically among stakeholders:

Uber’s Defense: The company initially justified Greyball as a protective measure, claiming it denied ride requests to users who violated terms of service, including those who might “unfairly target drivers.” A company spokesperson stated the tool has been used for many purposes, including the testing of new features, marketing promotions, fraud prevention, and to protect our partners from physical harm.

Regulators’ Outrage: One Portland official described Uber’s tactics as “the most serious breach of trust” observed in a regulated industry. In London, Transport for London later cited Greyball as one factor in its decision to revoke Uber’s operating license, calling it evidence that the company was not “fit and proper” to hold one.

Free Market Defenders: Some commentators sympathetic to Uber argued that Greyball was merely a creative defense against protectionist regulations pushed by taxi monopolies. From this perspective, Uber was fighting antiquated rules that hindered innovation.

The Fallout

Under intense scrutiny, Uber quickly changed course. Within days of the exposé, the company announced it would stop using Greyball to target regulators, though it maintained the broader VTOS program for legitimate safety purposes.

The consequences were significant:

•             The U.S. Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into the program

•             Multiple cities opened their own investigations

•             The scandal contributed to a leadership crisis at Uber, which saw CEO Travis Kalanick step down months later

•             Uber ultimately embraced a more compliance-oriented approach under new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi

Perhaps most importantly, Greyball became a watershed moment in the tech ethics conversation. It highlighted how software can be weaponized against regulatory oversight and raised questions about the responsibility of engineers when asked to build potentially unethical tools.

Lessons for Software Ethics

The Greyball incident offers several enduring lessons for the tech industry:

1.          Technical brilliance doesn’t excuse ethical lapses. The ingenuity that went into Greyball’s targeting algorithms didn’t justify its deceptive purpose.

2.          Ethics reviews should be built into development processes. Had Uber subjected Greyball to formal ethical scrutiny before deployment, the company might have avoided significant reputational damage.

3.          Engineers have agency. The software engineering profession’s ethical codes exist precisely for situations where technical professionals are asked to build potentially harmful systems.

4.          Growth-at-all-costs mentality creates ethical blind spots. Uber’s aggressive expansion strategy created an environment where skirting rules was celebrated rather than questioned.

As technology continues to reshape industries and challenge regulatory frameworks, the Greyball case reminds us that software isn’t just code—it’s a reflection of human values and choices. When those choices prioritize deception over transparency and corporate interest over public good, even the most innovative technology can become a liability rather than an asset.

---

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.