Comment by vkou | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vkou | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are not supposed to run a massively successful startup by blatantly breaking every single consumer protection law that gets in the way of your profit margin.

The e-mail by itself isn't the only problem. It's that it's just one line in a list of unethical, illegal or abusive behaviour that's as long as his arm.

Keep in mind - this is also the guy that stole money from the IRS (By funding his previous company with money he was supposed to withhold for employee income taxes... And by not charging taxi/sales taxes on Uber rides in many, many jurisdcitions), from drivers (By dramatically cutting their share of fares - after many of them were locked into long-term leases for their vehicles - leases sold to them by Uber), and who has blatantly lied to the public. (About Uber's background check policies, or the lack thereof. While having the audacity to charge riders a 'background check fee'.)

If running a successful startup requires being a completely terrible corporate citizen, then the valley needs to be burnt to the ground, before it drags the rest of us down with it.

These are consumer protection laws in name only. The laws/rules/regulations that Uber is breaking are first, foremost, and pretty much exclusively protecting the taxi industry.

If they really believed that then they should have fought those laws in the political arena rather than just ignoring them.

It doesn't follow or at least I don't see how.

You don't see how a multinational corporation running roughshod over a democratically elected government is a bad thing?

I don't see how your conclusion follows from the premise. And captured regulators are hardly the pinnacle of democracy.

I'm glad that you feel confident that no background checks, no vehicle inspection checks, no in-between-ride insurance, no transparency into surge pricing, no adherence to accessibility requirements, as well as getting grey-balled off the system (If Uber suspects you work for a municipal government or law enforcement) are run-arounds to spurious, burdensome, and unnecessary laws.

I mean, I have the unreasonable expectation that my taxi drivers aren't rapists, or haven't had recent DUIs, that their insurance will cover them while they are on the job, and that the ADA will come down like a metric tonne of bricks on them if they refuse to pick up disabled passengers... But perhaps that's too much to ask from a radical world-changing inspired baller.

(As with the rest of the transportation industry, the regulations require all those things have been written in blood.)

Were the taxi background checks in New York and San Francisco more comprehensive than those done by Uber?

Yes, they were, and yes, they are. Uber wasn't even doing background checks at the start, and they aren't doing fingerprint checks. They are quite literally, matching people's names. This has a huge false positive, and false negative rate.

Never mind that circumventing their background checks is also trivial - many drivers have gotten friends and relatives to create their accounts. This flies under the radar, because Uber doesn't care - they need more drivers.

They could, of course, calm these concerns by being transparent about their process (Or just doing the same that taxi companies do.) They don't, and they aren't, though.

[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...

Yes, I've read it all and feel much more confident stepping into an Uber than into a taxi. I'm hardly alone. It's not a rare or unusual view like you're trying to present it.

It's not like Uber is a rape fest touring the world in beat up lemons. In fact, I never even had an impolite conversation with the driver. It's just enforced with a different mechanism than background checks and inspections.

Frankly, I find the American paranoia behind running background checks on everyone much more bizarre than taking a ride in a stranger's car. And I highly doubt their effectiveness in a world where Reality Winner holds a (much harder to come by) security clearance.

Do we need to run background checks on the guy who puts cheese on your taco at Taco Bell? Or on a window-washer? Probably not.

Do we need to run a background check on the guy who may be driving around an intoxicated woman at 3 am in the morning? Yes, yes, and a million times, yes.

Maybe also check to make sure that he doesn't have a few DUIs to his name. Or, you know, a pattern of riders complaining about their driver being buzzed. They aren't even sticking to their own policy, there.

https://www.thefix.com/uber-faces-11-million-fine-over-drunk...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com