Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuaellinger | Hacker News Reader

That's a misleading article.

For example, in Austin, Ann Kitchen's proposal passed 9-2 and fingerprints are required. Austin already had horse-and-buggy rides for the tourists so relabeling it was a funny tactic but not substantive. What's more, Uber/Lyft lost the fight over fingerprints in Houston and San Antonio.

Overall, it looks less like a giant coup and more like responsible regulation change to protect public safety.

Uber/Lyft are effectively saying is that so many of their drivers lie about their names because they have minor criminal records that Uber/Lyft can't recruit enough drivers if they have to do effective background checks. That's not going to fly.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/whats-next-for-ub...

View on HN

While the fingerprint background checks feel safer, it turns out that they're less accurate and less safe than the checks Uber is doing. They are doing both fingerprints as well as their traditional background check process for all the Taxis on their system in California.

"In 2014 at least 600 people in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—all cities that require taxi drivers to go through Live Scan—who previously drove taxis failed our background check. (2) These drivers were not given access to Uber’s platform, but may continue transporting passengers by taxi. Their records included convictions for sex offenses or rape (19 potential drivers), DUIs (36 potential drivers), child endangerment or abuse (seven potential drivers), and assault or battery (51 potential drivers)." - https://newsroom.uber.com/details-on-safety/

I bet that's a large part of the reason they fight against fingerprinting but I know there's a very large technical and economic one. They have a very nice bulk rate with a very good (in my opinion as a developer and customer) background check API service that means the switch to fingerprinting would cost them SIGNIFICANTLY more per transaction than the background check system they're currently using, which doesn't support fingerprint checks.

EDIT: I don't have any claims as to the accuracy of the system they use vs fingerprint systems but I can say that the backgrounds we get from the same system they use are just fine for our insurance underwriters and our background checks are for people operating vehicles as well.

So I signed up for Uber as a partner a while ago and had to submit to a background check from some third party data broker (hell if I can remember the name of the company, though).

What is an "effective" background check? Either the broker has criminal records for you, or they do not.

There are hundreds if not thousands of courts and government offices that keep the relevant records. Each has a different way of making those records available. If the background check service doesn't get all or them then it won't be effective because a person with a serious criminal record could just go to a different jurisdiction to escape their record.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com