Hacker News Reader

> So is it possible this is a fake breach in order to scrub further damaging evidence of others involved in the original 2016 cover up?

Can you elaborate what scrub means in this context? In what ways would this breach cover up the 2016 breach? Would the prosecutors suddenly lose their memory of the 2016 breach? Would evidence suddenly go missing?

View on HN

By locking out your company and chat mediums you can search and purge evidence or artifacts in hopes to not expose further corruption or others involved in the past one. While treating it as a real threat to feds and public. In the org cover up they hired the attackers as employees with modified NDAs as per the testimony given on the 14th. So with that info I wouldn't put it past them as will as the ftc passing gig worker protections which would also financially impact uber on top of the lawsuits that will come out of the 2016 breach cover up. So with those factors and their history this could be used as a cost savings measure in a way to limit the money they are going to pay out in both areas. So with the testimony it would in theory open discovery for new evidence which this could prevent if used as a clean up job for lack of a better term.

> In the org cover up they hired the attackers as employees with modified NDAs as per the testimony given on the 14th.

Do you have citation for this?

https://www.courthousenews.com/fired-uber-attorney-testifies... Sorry hired as part of their bug bounty program which is part of where that case is important as it could lead to the death of bug bounty programs potentially

Reply on news.ycombinator.com