Uber and Lyft Spend $8.2 Million To Lose Fingerprint Election, Vow To Leave Austin (examiner.com) 335
On Saturday voters in Austin, Texas refused to repeal a new regulation that requires fingerprinting drivers for ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. In Austin's most expensive election ever, the ride-sharing services spent over $8.2 million pushing Proposition 1, apparently outspending their opponents by a 80:1 ratio. But on election day, the proposal to repeal ultimately received just 39,083 votes -- 44% of the total cast -- meaning the lobbyists spent $209 for each vote received. Both services have said they will cease operations in Austin rather than perform the fingerprint-based criminal background checks.
Waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very much a libertarian sort of person, but I don't agree with Uber and Lyft on this one. That they should spend so much money to avoid conducting the most basic level of a serious background check makes me wonder if the are trying for willful blindness. A bogus background check just asks you to say who you are, and then they check your name. By requiring fingerprinting, Austin is helping to insure that individuals aren't side-stepping a criminal past.
It is fairly easy to get fake credentials such as name and SS#, and pass yourself off as someone else. Admittedly, someone could fake or alter their fingerprints, but it is more durable. It is also less intrusive than a DNA check, which I would oppose, even though it might catch a few more people than fingerprints alone.
I don't believe there should be unlimited "liberty" for those who are going to have another person alone in their vehicle, for hire.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why the libertarian mechanism does not always work. Oh, you lied about having 10 DWIs and now you just killed your passenger and yourself? Well, that's it! You are blacklisted and can never drive for Uber again. Take that.
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
rank utter ignorance.
research some actual corporate malfeasance.
the tobacco industry is a GREAT example.
or early food processors.
or DuPont's legacy involving C8, using in making Teflon, a chemical now so prevalent that there is no place on earth NOT contaminated by it.
or lead, something most of the rest of world had reduced usage of by the 1920s, but the US went along putting in everything, everywhere, for another 60 years, blatantly ignoring, at the behest of the companies dependent on it, all the science pointing to its ill effects.
the fact is that damages to the business have never scared companies from poisoning customers, destroying the environment, or any other possible harms. they are amoral institutions that know exactly what the value of a human life is to their bottom line. and the math frequently comes out to "we can afford to harm X number of people before profits suffer", and then they operate as such.
self-regulation is a fairy tale told by the ignorant.
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
self-regulation is a fairy tale told by the ignorant.
Not so, it's a fairy tale told by the informed who have a vested interest in continuing to operate without regulation. Unfortunately, they've also now learned about regulator capture, so the choice is often between ineffective regulation and no regulation.
When do we stop fingerprinting? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also?
I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..
I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted? ;) in fact, we better make it mandatory
Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there.
Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others.
Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones
for phone ownership....
I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!
Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part
of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.
However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the
world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
So no, I don't think that modern day America is that bad. It's still appalling and undignified, though
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
There is the old saying: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.". If Uber and Lyft let themselves get bullied into submission in one place, doesn't that set the precedent for it to happen everywhere? Hell, Google even left the largest market in the world when pushed too far. And we celebrated that move.
Re:Waste of money (Score:5, Informative)
They already do perform background checks.
Make no mistake, this had nothing to do with "safety" on the party of the City Council. This was about control, political connections, and Austin getting a taste of Uber and Lyfts cash. It's a classic shake down. Several City Council members have close ties to the local Taxi companies, who were getting their clocks cleaned.
Taxi Cabs have enjoyed a public monopoly and regulated shortages for decades, The barrier to entry is very high in the Taxi market. The city made lots of money from taxes and fees and regulated what taxis went when and where. Along come Uber and Lyft. they don't play Austin's game.
Before Uber and Lyft, it was very difficult to find a cab at 2AM downtown. There weren't enough for all the partiers. With Uber and Lyft in the market, drunk driving incidents have gone down and people were very satisfied with Uber and Lyft's service. So what happens when a business is making money and has happy customers? Yep, the politicians step in to fuck it up. Austin wants to control prices, wants fees, and wants to limit the number of drivers.
So now Uber and Lyft leave and more people will stumble to their cars at 2am and drive drunk, More people will drive their own vehicles downtown, taking up parking and clogging up traffic. The cost of getting a ride will go up and service will decline.
It's the Detroit model where special interests win out over common sense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?
Second, what is the actual cost (both in terms of "dollars" and "inconvenience") to implement fingerprint-based background checks? Is it really that much? Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting? That might shrink the pool of driv
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
Austin is going to actually do the fingerprinting and background check
Odds that the costs will be passed along without some fee or markup?
Nil.
Austin never regulates anything without some sort of cost plus arrangement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since background checks are paid for at a flat-fee rate in most places, the entire thing is moot. Strange that neither company has problems with it up here in Canada, at least not yet. But the laws are changing, because they both want to be a taxi company and here taxi companies are required to have background checks including criminal background checks before you can get your full chauffeurs license.
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?
The last time I had a fingerprinting done in Texas for a background check, I had to go to the local police department and pay them cash (only cash, and no change given) for a police officer to print me. They had to stamp it to verify that the prints were from the person on the ID, so you can't print yourself and "borrow" someone else's fingers. The fee wasn't huge, but it was a fee paid to the local city. There was a separate fee to the state for the actual background check.
Do you know what the process is for fingerprint background checks, or were you just assuming it wasn't a revenue source?
Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting?
That's the standard practice, but is illegal. Requiring an employee to pay to work was outlawed in the 1800s, as part of Reconstruction. The laws have since been loosened, bot early post-slavery practices included "hiring" a person at $1 to work a field, and charging him a $2 fee to work the field. Then, once in debt, require he work off the debt. It resulted in permenant indentures servitude, which is more commonly called slavery. So outlawing slavery didn't work, and laws were put in place, especially in the south (and some federal laws) that ban an employer from requiring costs to work. They are not commonly applied, but for someone like Uber, I'm sure the crowd here would have no qualms equating Uber to slavery, and holding Uber to laws that are never used these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. That and kick-backs. There are bribes flying all around at council members there. Here's hoping for federal investigations and jail time for councleweasles.
Re:Waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
The taxi companies (and according to you, the city council members in their pockets) spent *CLOSE TO NOTHING* to oppose this proposition. Uber and Lyft spent 8.2 million to push is. Yet the CITIZENS of Austin rejected Uber / Lyft's view. Did the taxi companies pay off everyone who opposed this prop? Or perhaps you drink too much right-wing Kool-Aid...
You would have preferred bribes? (Score:2)
So, you know that for a fact?
It must be amazing to live in a country where all graft and bribery is openly and publicly reported so that you can come to such a conclusion.
Where I live, the fact that uber/lyft spent so much on trying to get a message to the public would be seen as interesting as it pretty much proves
that they didnt either just bribe the officials, or buy votes (which, it seems, would have almost certainly allowed them to win with such a
tiny turnout).
But no, you are worried that they took the
Re:Waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we just have lots of leftists who like government being involved in every aspect of your life. We also have asinine bans on bags at grocery stores.
Might I suggest Austin is not the right own for you?
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like it, then move somewhere else in Texas. Austin is pretty unusual in the state, being 'leftist' and all. Maybe that's why Austin is such a desirable place to live and people are moving in like crazy. I've got a friend up in Wichita Falls, there's no problem getting cheap property up there. Or if you prefer coastal living, I've got another friend in Brazosport, no leftyness there and plenty of cheap property. What does Austin have that Wichita Falls, Brazosport, Vidor, Odessa etc. don't,
Re: (Score:3)
No, we just have lots of leftists who like government being involved in every aspect of your life. We also have asinine bans on bags at grocery stores.
You think you got it bad, in my town the government has set up big colored lights at the corners of streets and is telling us drivers we need to stop when the red light is on or some such overly complex system, typical government regulatory bureaucracy. A big giveaway to the people who make those lights. What a crock. What right does the government have to interfere in my right to move from place to place peaceably? I can judge perfectly well if I can get through the intersection before the other guy, certa
Re: (Score:2)
Having made such a claim, care to actually back it up? How, exactly, did Proposition 1 shake down Uber or Lyft for cash?
[[Citation Needed]]
Re: (Score:3)
Austin Limo's and Taxis are already fingerprinted. All they wanted was for Lyft and Uber to make a one time 30 minute visit to get fingerprinted like the other drivers.
This is not about Austin getting in on Uber and Lyft's cash. It would be a one time fee, and you know it would be paid for by the drivers as independent contractors - just like the required vehicle inspection is, so how is Austin getting in on that sweet, sweet rideshare money?
I disagree about your premise of the quality of the rideshare back
They can't afford the checks (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber and really the entire "sharing" economy can't survive without white knuckle desperation. Take those people out, however you do it, and they'll collapse. And that's just what they did in Austin.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not supposed to be your primary job. You drive as many trips as you want to to make a little extra cash. I don't know ANY Uber or Lyft drivers that do it full time. If you think you can, you're DOING IT WRONG.
There are lots (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber was, is and always will be only viable so long as they can externalize their costs. That's why every single one of these "sharing" economy companies shut down the moment they were made to stop doing that. Remember that company that did the same thing with Maid services? As soon as the local government demanded they pay minimum wage by reimbursing the workers for mileage and supplies they shut down. Completely. Hell, they couldn't survive paying _minimum wage let alone a living wage. Neither could Uber.
It is their right to leave (Score:2)
Austin voters just said "we don't like your current business model, change it or stop doing business until you do."
The companies replied "okay, we can do that."
By the way, there are talks in the works. I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies come back within a year, under some sort of compromise.
Re:It is their right to leave (Score:5, Informative)
Austin defeated an ordinance that was forced onto the ballot by Uber and Lyft, who said "Pass our ordinance or we'll pick up our toys and go home."
This was never really about Austin. It was about teaching a lesson to other cities who might follow Austin's lead.
Uber and Lyft have backed themselves into a corner. If they leave, they'll leave an opening for other companies to come in and grow (GetMe is already here and probably salivating at the prospect); if they don't leave, they'll show other cities they can be cowed after all. So expect them to leave long enough to show other cities they mean business, but then come back with deep discounts and free rides to kill off any homegrown competition.
FWIW, it's not just about fingerprints. For example, currently, Uber and Lyft are theoretically prohibited from stopping in traffic lanes (because people die when they do that [kxan.com]), but the proposed ordinance was going to change that because they can make more money if they inconvenience everybody else.
But to the extent it was about vetting drivers, don't for a minute think that Uber and Lyft are planning on cheerfully taking responsibility for the actions of their drivers [arstechnica.com] anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that'll be a good result for the suing wife. A motorcycle driving into the back of a legally stopped car seems to be the fault of the motorcycle, not the employers of the legally stopped driver.
Re:It is their right to leave (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but the passenger still died. The regulation is designed to prevent the death, instead of just correctly assign blame after the death. Sort of the difference between the liberal and libertarian viewpoints I guess.
Re: It is their right to leave (Score:2)
Mod this up -- spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Property rights. Who do you think owns the roads?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they have power against the public will. They can't be compelled to labor.
If every place did this, and Uber and Lyft continued to pull out at place after place, you could just go into business as a fingerprinting version of them and compete. They'd either stand on principle (very unlikely) or just adapt.
But no, they don't have to obey. They have a choice- obey or leave. They chose to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
you could just go into business as a fingerprinting version of them and compete.
No you couldn't. The fingerprinting was designed to harass them into leaving or at least paying extortion. It worked, but if it hadn't, the city would have just piled on more petty regulations. There is no way that this would have been the end of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads Backfired, I Hope (Score:5, Interesting)
I live just outside of Austin and couldn't vote on this but would have voted against Prop 1 (against Uber an Lyft) just because of the annoying radio ads constantly running against it -- the ads with the hushed, concerned female voice saying things like, "Did you know that the city will take over background checks, at taxpayers expense?" Combine that with the threats to leave the market... After enough of those I wasn't even interested in looking into the merits of the arguments on both sides. Good riddance, although Uber and Lyft will probably run to the state government and get some State Rep from Bumscrew, West Texas to sponsor a bill overturning all local elections/ordinances preventing "consumer ride choice freedom".
Re:Ads Backfired, I Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in the city and got tired of the ad barrage about government overreach. What Prop 1 would have done is not have regulations that apply to taxi drivers apply to them, as well as giving Uber/Lyft drivers the ability to stop and park -anywhere-, which causes traffic jams as they can sit blocking a road for almost a half hour.
Taxi drivers also have to have a special licence in Texas, a chauffeur's license. This is not cheap. Ridesharing services? AFIAK, Nothing needed, so they get a free pass when it comes to this regulation.
My take... if they want to take their toys and go home... so be it. There are other ridesharing companies which will obey the law of the land, who will gladly take their business.
Re: (Score:3)
I also live in Austin and completely agree with you. Unsolicited text messages are no way to endear yourself to people. But the radio in my car was broken so at least I was spared of those ads, and I never received any physical mail either.
But my real qualm is that these companies used to be start-ups. Now that they are so huge, they have become just as stubborn to change as the Taxi companies. Nicht Gut, Uber. As this will only allow competitors to enter the market and take over.
Also I would not be surpr
Re:Ads Backfired, I Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in the city and got tired of the ad barrage about government overreach. What Prop 1 would have done is not have regulations that apply to taxi drivers apply to them [...]
This is what torques me off about Uber/Lyft.
It's not ride-sharing. It's a taxi service.
Ride-sharing is, like, "Hey, I'm going to work and I happen to drive past the airport. If anyone needs a lift to the airport and it's not too inconvenient, I'll give you a ride." Taxis, conversely, drive around to areas and wait for people who need rides and then take them where they want to go. When they drop off that person, they wait for someone else.
I would be more than willing to bet that the majority--even the vast majority--ascribe more to the taxi model than the ride-sharing model. Sorry--they're taxis. Uber/Lyft are, essentially, nationwide taxi companies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ride-sharing. It's a taxi service.
Taxi is, like, "I'll go to the cab rank and hail a cab, or hail one down on the street."
Uber is a private limo service, and in NYC is regulated as such and abides by those rules. They aren't a taxi service, as "taxi" means there are requirements around car labeling and in some places required by law to pull over for a hail (especially in places where taxi bigotry was strong). As Uber does not have cab ranks, and does not respond to hails, they are not a "taxi" service in any definition of the word. Yes
Re: (Score:2)
I had a chauffeur's license in Michigan, and it was about $10 more per year than a standard license. Is such a license really that much more expensive in Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The number in the summary was for votes cast in favor of Prop 1. They didn't pay for anyone to vote against them.
Incessant advertising (Score:5, Informative)
My friends who have used Uber said that they were getting like 3-4 mail advertisements a week about this, plus emails, texts, etc. Some who otherwise wouldn't care voted against it because they were so annoyed at the spam.
Austin still has a driver service besides taxis. Get Me [getme.com] operates here and complies with the background checks.
Re: (Score:3)
AFAICT, they really screwed themselves with the lies and distortions in their ad campaign. They had a petition of 65K signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and then only got 39K votes. (At a cost of well over $200 / vote.)
Where were the rest of the petitioners?
Re:Incessant advertising (Score:4, Interesting)
RWA: Which way are you planning on voting on Prop 1?
MIL: I'm FOR fingerprinting.
RWA: Then you want to vote FOR Prop 1.
MIL: Are you sure? I thought I'm supposed supposed to vote against.
RWA: Nope, you're supposed to vote FOR it if you're in favor of fingerprinting.
We got at least four canvassers. The first guy asked us how we were planning on voting for Prop 1, and my wife replied that she was for fingerprinting. He tried to argue that fingerprinting wasn't necessary, so he was pro-Prop 1. I answered the door to another canvasser who was anti-Prop 1. My wife ignored the last two when she saw that they were carrying clipboards.
I ran into a pro-Prop 1 canvasser while out jogging with my neighbors. The canvasser got lost in our neighborhood, so we walked with her for a block. She tried to use some of the pro-Prop 1 talking points, but she admitted that she didn't really care about it, so she was probably paid.
On top of that, the internet was on fire. Here [reddit.com] and here [reddit.com] are two reddit posts just about the phone calls. Nextdoor threads were epic.
Re: (Score:3)
... the CEO is "anonymous" leading many to believe that the whole thing is a taxi company run plant
You're posting this anonymously, leading many to believe that you're a corporate plant. But anyway, so what if it's a taxi company? If they can provide a valuable service and cooperate with local municipalities, good for them.
the issue? (Score:2)
Re:the issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their objection is that they're a "disruptive" "startup" "app" so they shouldn't have to play by any rules, because rules are so last year. They'd rather piss away $8 million fighting the regulations than spend a fraction of that to comply with them. Welcome to the new dot bomb, with a bunch of entitled twats leading the way.
Re:the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
Entitled? How about let the consumer decide.
The consumers did decide, it went to a vote and Uber lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Voters rejecting ads, amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine applying the same process to the November elections and completely purging the House of all incumbents. Let them have their Citizens United and spend all the money they want. With our votes, we can turn that money into confetti. No phony "reform" or term limits needed.
So, they "vowed" to leave Austin. Maybe that was the idea behind the rule. This is a vaporous company (really, what's this 50 billion "valuation"bullshit?) that is going to leave a lot of people holding the bag when it disappears.
So... (Score:2)
There wouldn't be an issue if... (Score:2)
Ride-sharing companies should have no objection to safety and environmental regulations, so long as they appply to all drivers for hire in the area. The line on the asphalt that Uber/Lyft must draw is any regulation restricting the number of cabs.
Personal choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was discussion of allowing optional requests for fingerprinted drivers, but Uber and Lyft dismissed that possibility out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to be fingerprinted in order to hold a job then?
Bully for you.
Fingerprints should not be allowed for this (Score:5, Informative)
There is absolutely no reason the government should require collecting and using fingerprints, especially just to run background checks. Using fingerprints and allowing the government (or any other party) to have access to that data is unacceptable. Not only because the government should have no need to track what people are doing but because the gov should not have fingerprint registration data- which will be horribly abused. To me this is just SHOCKING.
Stand up for your rights, people... (and the rights of your children, too). Once you give this data to the government (or big business), it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between all agencies and used however they want for as long as they want. Even worse, with every crime investigation, you will be searched without probable cause.
Again, there is ZERO reason for fingerprints just to do a background check of *LICENSED DRIVERS*, but if one MUST use biometrics, there is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides which, there's a very high probability that this biometric data will eventually be stolen by some hacker, or leaked via an insider. Then criminals will have your biometric data, and won't that be fun?
Re: (Score:2)
The ends do not justify the means.... a correct background check would reveal their history. If they need to ID someone, then it should be done using something that cannot be abused- that would be their driver's license & photo. And if that is not good enough, then they should consider using deep vein scan.
Re: (Score:2)
Using that logic, there is no limit to what we "should" do to citizens to "protect the children" or whatnot.
Living in a [supposedly] "free" society has risks. Otherwise, there is no freedom.
Bet they don't (Score:2)
Good to see them lose for once. (Score:2)
Granted, it is Austin, but there is something good in being able to resist the whims of pseudo-taxi services. The rules have worked well for Austin's residents, they don't need to give an exemption for trendiness.
What kind of bribery will they try next to get around the check that every other service uses? Or will they just try to implement another baseless "DeBlasio meter" to cause customer-sourced pressure? Besides, rule exemptions are for high-speed toll roads ;)
Gross misinformation like this is why y'all lost (Score:2)
This hasn't been true in a very long time. The only new thing is the prints are now going to be checked nationally, not statewide.
Hell, my daughter drove a pedicab starting in 2010 and had to get fingerprinted.
language (Score:2)
I live in Austin and voted prop 1. Why? Because the city government is out of control here in general, and even though I am not a U/L user, I wanted to send that message. One thing about prop 1 that didn't get a lot of attention was how convoluted the damn language on the ballot was. One local TV station did some reporting on it.
prop 1: "Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and p
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Austin and voted prop 1. Why? Because the city government is out of control here in general, and even though I am not a U/L user, I wanted to send that message. One thing about prop 1 that didn't get a lot of attention was how convoluted the damn language on the ballot was. One local TV station did some reporting on it.
prop 1: "Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations."
Yea, how many folks stood in front of the ballot box and scratched their heads on that one.
http://www.kvue.com/news/local... [kvue.com]
The sad thing is you know there's some lifer in an office somewhere saying "I don't see how I could make it any clearer"
Wow, such a low turn-out... (Score:3)
But on election day, the proposal to repeal ultimately received just 39,083 votes -- 44% of the total cast...
So, in Austin, a city of a little over 910,000 people, only 89,000 or so voted... And people wonder why government doesn't represent them...
The view from Austin (Score:2)
Austinite here. The summary is a bit misleading (as have most statements from the "grassroots" Ridesharing Works for Austin group).
First, the vote was for a new proposition. The new proposition was "scrap existing ordinance and come up with something else that does NOT require 1) fingerprint based background checks, 2) clear marking on taxis, 3) taxis be required to drop passengers at a curb (as opposed to having everyone jump out in the middle of a 3+ lane street)." The existing ordinance was not new. Uber
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be noted that Ridesharing Works for Austin has also dumped more money into this election than any election in Austin's history.
And,as things usually work in Texas, TX State Representatives Chris Paddie, John Kuempel, and Lyle Larsonhas have searched their consciences, found that it directed them to a huge bag of money, and then filed a bill that would prohibit cities like Austin from passing such ordinances in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, can't let corporations write the laws for Austin City Council. Tell that to all the developers from out of state building developments downtown like a farking mushroom farm. Including one that is being built for the tune of 60 million purposefully being built with no parking. This is the city council's grand plan to reduce traffic in Austin. Can't let a corporation control what gets voted on in Austin.... what a pile of horse sh*t. That dog just don't hunt. It's biz a usual for the greasy fingers of Au
Please stop calling it "ride sharing" (Score:3)
It's not ride sharing. Ride sharing is when someone is going to go to a specific destination, and is willing to take other people there, splitting costs. Pretending to be a taxi is not "ride sharing".
Re:Another example of the rich buying elections (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you've drawn the opposite of the correct conclusion. This demonstrates that no matter how much money you plough into a campaign, it's the votes that really matter.
Re:Another example of the rich buying elections (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a key detail, that is often lost on Slashdotters. You can't buy votes. You can buy attention and reputation, and that may lead to votes, but that connection is not guaranteed, and any attempt to ensure that votes are bought is illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
One question though. There are plenty of jobs were biometric data is taken and used for security or background checks. Defence, Medical, Police, for the public sector and then lots of secure facilities use biometrics as one of there data points. I assume you wouldn't ever do one of those jobs because of the need to give a finger print, but if you know that that is the requirement of the job what is the issue? It's not like this is the only role where finger prints are taken.
Re: (Score:2)
I can picture a small number of fairly unique jobs where biometrics are sensible and necessary. In those limited cas
Re: (Score:2)
Medical research you will see a lot of biometric security. Particularly if you are working with anything infectious. On drug testing, at least where I live, it is across all construction and mining sites. So even if you are a desk jockey you may have to do a D&A test before going on site. Not 100% of sites, but lots and lots of them. And certainly all rail sites.
The reason I was talking about your work was your comment "Not even if, in exchange, they allow to drive a taxi." I extended that to "Not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Because people have to actually be victims before you find out who the bad guys are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you prefer a higher chance that your driver is going to hurt you in some way? That makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you prefer a higher chance that your driver is going to hurt you in some way? That makes no sense.
Security costs money. For example, take the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Would putting armed guards at every theater in the country make us safer in movie theaters? Probably. Would it be worth the cost? Probably not. If you disagree, you are free to open your own theater and hire armed guards yourself. That's the beauty of the free market.
Likewise, Uber tells me that they already do background checks, and they say that the fingerprint check that the city of Austin wants is redundant and creates an
Re: (Score:2)
>> I'm not trying to force my choices on anyone else.
Sure you are. Want if I want to know that whatever driver I get has for sure been fingerprinted?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck is this "Flamebait?" This exactly how it should work. NO one is forcing anyone to use Uber. All this does is eliminate competition and protect cab company margins, and ensure that the number of tourists willing to visit Austin (that do any research at all) will plummet.
Hell I had a job offer from an Austin company and my reply was just today "I have no interest in living in a town where if I need a ride I have to call Yellow Cab. Please do not contact me again."
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to pass a law that says Uber must display a prominent warning to new users in their app that says, "We do not fingerprint drivers. Use this system at your own risk.", so be it. However, Uber should also be free, right after that warning, to tell people what the actual probability is that the driver will assault the passenger, and User should be able to compare that to the risk you will be assaulted in a taxi. Let the facts speak for themselves.
It's sad that the state will allow me to drink alcoh
Re:I dont understand what the problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm assuming regular taxi drivers also need to be fingerprinted
Taxi drivers do not currently need to be fingerprinted, but under the new regulation they will need to submit fingerprints by Feb 2017. The fact that nobody cared about fingerprinting drivers until Uber and Lyft came along, indicates that fingerprinting is not designed to address an actual safety problem.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Taxi drivers do not currently need to be fingerprinted
Yes they do, at least in SF.
https://www.sfmta.com/services... [sfmta.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's also the issue that fingerprinting is for criminals and should never be a condition of employment. These onerous rules are imposed specifically to drive businesses like Uber and Lyft out of a market. If they'd complied, next year there would just be some new regulation to meet.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you want to work anywhere where biometrics are used as part of the security infrastructure.