Uber Stopped Its Own Investigators From Reporting Crimes To the Police (theverge.com) 63
The special investigations team inside Uber, which fields complaints from riders and drivers, is not allowed to escalate those issues to law enforcement or file official police reports "even when they get confessions of felonies," according to The Washington Post. They are also not allowed to advise victims or potential victims of crimes to seek legal counsel, according to the report, which was based on interviews with "more than 20 current and former investigators" who worked at Uber's investigations unit in Arizona. The Verge reports: The investigators are also allegedly instructed to "first to protect Uber" and make sure it is "not held liable" for any crimes that are committed by people using the company's ride-hailing platform. In that vein, the investigators told the paper that even the language they use when communicating with alleged victims is carefully worded to avoid the appearance that Uber is taking a side. The investigators also said they're not supposed to specifically ask alleged perpetrators about claims against them. Uber told the Post that it's "the victim's choice to report an incident to police," a position the company tells The Verge it arrived at after consulting experts. That said, the company has started giving people the "option to allow [Uber] to contact law enforcement on their behalf" if the customer is reporting an incident that may be a crime, according to the Post.
"At the end of the day, we're not the judge and jury to determine whether a crime has occurred," Tracey Breeden, Uber's global head of women's safety, told the Post. "We're here to gather information, make a business decision. We're not law enforcement." In a statement to The Verge, a spokesperson for Uber said the company has "made substantial investments in both the [special investigations] team and in our safety technology, policies and processes," and that investigators "receive more targeted training based on years of guidance from experts in the field." "We are very proud of this team's work and know they approach their jobs with tremendous compassion and understanding," the spokesperson said. "Characterizing this team as anything but providing support to people after a difficult experience is just wrong. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do and implement new approaches, based on expert guidance, to the benefit of both our customers and employees."
"At the end of the day, we're not the judge and jury to determine whether a crime has occurred," Tracey Breeden, Uber's global head of women's safety, told the Post. "We're here to gather information, make a business decision. We're not law enforcement." In a statement to The Verge, a spokesperson for Uber said the company has "made substantial investments in both the [special investigations] team and in our safety technology, policies and processes," and that investigators "receive more targeted training based on years of guidance from experts in the field." "We are very proud of this team's work and know they approach their jobs with tremendous compassion and understanding," the spokesperson said. "Characterizing this team as anything but providing support to people after a difficult experience is just wrong. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do and implement new approaches, based on expert guidance, to the benefit of both our customers and employees."
Seems Reasonable (Score:1)
I'm about as "fuck Uber" as you can get, but this all seems reasonable.
The special investigations team inside Uber, which fields complaints from riders and drivers, is not allowed to escalate those issues to law enforcement or file official police reports
Of course they aren't. They aren't aggrieved or informed parties in the alleged matters, they're outside parties running surveys.
"even when they get confessions of felonies,"
Uber can't get a confession in any legal sense.
according to The Washington Post.
I think I found the problem.
They are also not allowed to advise victims or potential victims of crimes to seek legal counsel
Of course they aren't. They don't even know the fucking law. They're not lawyers, and they're not law enforcement. They're marketing goons taking surveys. (Even if some of them are in fact lawyers, they're not counsel representing the people they're surveying.)
Re: (Score:2)
Fucked up the </quote> a couple of times so it got nested to hell. Oh well.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Funny)
Fucked up the </quote> a couple of times so it got nested to hell. Oh well.
Your confession is noted, but don't worry, Uber won't report that either.
Re: (Score:1)
Fucked up the </quote> a couple of times so it got nested to hell. Oh well.
Slashdot could make a lot of money if submitters could pay $5 to edit their posts.
They should warn if HTML tags are not balanced when you try to submit.
Anyways, I agree with your point, that it is silly to be outraged about Uber not calling the police on behalf of customers who have decided not to do so on their own. When I participate in a survey, the last thing I want is for the people conducting the survey to send the police to my house.
Re: (Score:2)
Are journalists in foreign countries supposed to seek local criminal proceedings on behalf of every injustice they see?
I'm not necessarily defending the rent-seekers as independent and unrelated, but I'm getting motion sickness from the vergespin.
Re: Seems Reasonable (Score:2)
Uber people being trolled, Uber people uninformed about what is and what is not a crime in every jurisdiction, the inamissability of a survey ... there's just nothing but hell waiting for an Uber that wants to be a snitch.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called accessory after the fact, failure to report a crime against others is in fact a crime. Now you can see exactly what corporate law enforcing will be all about, protect the corporations, it's profits and executives, staff and customers can just fucking die once their wallets are emptied.
Their activities are effectively perverting the cause of justice, also a crime, this to feed PR=B$, for profit law enforcing.
Proper police should not conduct an investigation of Uber to see what crimes they have criminally covered up, each and every one. KEEP IN MIND, every criminal who was not investigated and prosecuted, likely went on to commit more crimes and create more victims, to which Uber response is, NO FUCKS GIVEN, more money now, fucking disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called accessory after the fact, failure to report a crime against others is in fact a crime.
Fucking wrong, dude. Being an accessory means you are an accessory, not a fucking person who heard tell of something.
Reporting something you heard an account of is hearsay, and no one can make you do it. The police wouldn't even give you the time of fucking day unless someone was in active danger.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Accessory requires that you know a person has committed a crime and assist them with the intention of helping them avoid punishment.
If Uber got a complaint of a crime committed by one of their employees and gave the complainant the runaround in any way, they'd be skating awfully close to that.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
California Penal Code 31 makes it a crime to aid or abet someone else in the commission of a crime. Aiding and abetting is more than merely witnessing or hearing of a crime. This offense requires that the defendant also:
knew the perpetrator’s illegal plan (Uber person has heard the plan or committed act);
intentionally encouraged or facilitated that plan (protect Uber, do not call police about it); and
aided, promoted or instigated in the crime’s commission (protect Uber, do not call police about it.)
Aiding and abetting offenses are also commonly charged when a defendant acted as a lookout or get-away-driver for the principal offenders. Prosecutors might also charge someone with accessory after the fact under penal code 32, if he or she engaged in conduct such as knowingly sheltering the principal offender after the offense.
I mean, this is basic fucking civics. Almost every state has a Duty to Report law. In some states, that only applies to witnessed acts against a minor. Nonetheless, some type of duty to report law exists in pretty much every state in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every state has a Duty to Report law. In some states, that only applies to witnessed acts against a minor. Nonetheless, some type of duty to report law exists in pretty much every state in the USA.
Duty to Report or Mandated Reporting applies to specific professionals who have regular contact with vulnerable people and people who have assumed full or intermittent responsibility for others. It does not encompass the common citizen.
As far as being required to report crimes, why when police have no duty to care or investigate? Why would a random citizen have greater responsibility than a professional law enforcement officer? And doubly so when a law enforcement officer has at least qualified immunity
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every state has a Duty to Report law. In some states, that only applies to witnessed acts against a minor.
Wait, that cannot be true. So you are saying their exists locations within America where I can saunter past a murder taking place, and as long as the person is not a minor and is dead by the time I could do anything, I can just legally go about my day?
Never Talk to the Cops (Score:2)
That and reporting the crime may lead to corrupt and/or incompetent cops for blaming you for it. Never talk to the cops unless you have immunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Came here to say pretty much the same thing. The tone is meant to fuel the outrage machine, but all I'm seeing is a reasonable response to some alleged messed up stuff that happened to people far away.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Hm... a customer complains to a company that one of their employees has committed a crime (or vice versa) and they don't report it? Seems like an awful risk. Where I live, by not reporting the crime, Uber would be an accessory to any potentially related crime committed by that person in the future.
Anyway, simple conclusion. Don't complain to Uber, just call the cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm... a customer complains to a company that one of their employees has committed a crime ...
Point of fact :
Drivers are not employees of Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Point of fact :
Drivers are not employees of Uber.
That... very much depends on jurisdiction, local laws about what constitutes an employee, and the actual specific details of the relationship between the driver and uber.
Sometimes companies can't contract away some things.
Re: (Score:2)
Point of fact :
Drivers are not employees of Uber.
That... very much depends on jurisdiction, local laws about what constitutes an employee, and the actual specific details of the relationship between the driver and uber.
Sometimes companies can't contract away some things.
I did jobs for Uber. I definitely wasn't an employee. By almost any current federal and stat laws , including California.
You know how I know?
I worked when i wanted to work , for as long as i wanted to work. And they didn't tell me how to do my work. If a ping came through for a ride I could take it or I could ignore it, the choice was mine. When I got to a rider , If i didn't want to let them in my car i didn't. I haven't driven for over 6 months, but if I wanted to i could open the app right now and ta
Re: (Score:3)
It was clear almost from the first that the California Supreme Court, in a ruling in April 2018, threw the business models of Uber and Lyft companies for a loop.
The thrust of the ruling was that drivers for those companies had been improperly classified as “independent contractors” when in fact they’re employees, entitled to most of the benefits and legal protections employees receive.
Things only looked worse for the companies when the Legislature started considering a bill to enshrine the court ruling into law.
Nor in the UK [cnbc.com]
Uber lost an appeal against a landmark 2016 ruling that the ride-hailing firm should treat its U.K. drivers as workers entitled to benefits like a minimum wage and holiday pay.
Nor in at least one case in Switzerland [france24.com].
A Swiss court has ruled that a former Uber driver was an employee of the ride-sharing firm, not an independent contractor, in a potentially landmark decision, the driver's lawyer said Monday.
Re: (Score:2)
As pointed out, your point of fact is very far from universal.
Also, contractors are generally afforded *less* protection by companies, not more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand what prompts someone who was (for example) raped, reporting the rape to the rapists employer instead of to the police.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Reporting to the police probably has a better chance of reducing that likelihood.
Re: (Score:2)
Reporting a rape can be a pretty bad experience for the woman as traditionally the law has been setup to protect men. From accusations of asking for it to questions about why they didn't fight back, or as a Judge recently asked a victim, "why didn't you keep your knees together?" This is especially true if no evidence, driver grabbed woman's boob or such, which is sexual assault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Be interesting to know exactly the types of crimes and if actually crimes or more assholeyness.
Re: (Score:1)
traditionally the law has been setup to protect men.
Traditionally the law has been setup, at least in principle, to protect the innocent accused.
The unaccused (guilty or innocent) don't need protecting, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, yet, for example, rape cases used to really focus on the sexual history of the victim, with the idea that a loose woman couldn't be raped. Hew and cry (sp?) was another one, if a woman was passive, and quite a few are, or didn't instantly report, then it wasn't rape. Showing too much skin, can't blame the man as she was asking for it.
This resulted in the victim being on trial as much as the accused if not more.
It's still like this to a degree, as the nature of the crime often results in some he s
Re: Seems Reasonable (Score:2)
Except that the victim isnt actually on trial. Unless it's a subsequent false report charge or something, the victim is there as a witness and isn't facing criminal conviction and punishment. So the system wasn't traditionally, and shouldn't be, based around them. Ensuring the witness credibility and alleged facts survive a robust challenge is vital to ensuring that only the guilty are put away. And if the victim is facing a subsequent related charge, THEN the system should be ensuring they, as a potential
Re: (Score:2)
When you're likely to be cross-examined as if it is you on trial, it actively discourages people laying charges. Your theory is correct but the reality is that a lot of woman are reluctant to get the law involved due to how traumatic the process can be.
Re: (Score:2)
On some other planet where innocent-until-proven guilty doesn't go out the window for the public and the media when an accused man is named? Where his entire life isn't put on public trial while the women remains anonymous, and where false accusers are given equivalent sentences to the innocent men [wikipedia.org] they sent to prison?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, where's that, and what law. Sounds more like some BS that some cop told you that's just not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they aren't. They don't even know the fucking law. They're not lawyers, and they're not law enforcement. They're marketing goons taking surveys.
This is literally the perfect example of when it is appropriate to advise someone of their option to seek legal counsel.
See how I got the quotes right?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, violating California law [ca.gov] seems absolutely reasonable, doesn't it?
Get the fuck outta here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a direct witness to a crime, you can't be forbidden from reporting the crime. Any retalition from an employer for doing this reporting would be illegal in many countries.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is:
How is that prohibition against retaliation by the employer enforced?
All too often the answer is "You've got to hire a lawyer an pray.", and those cases are so difficult that the lawyers usually want cash up front.
Re: (Score:2)
But many lawyers take on these cases on a contingency basis because the payoff can be large. Larger ompanies don't shrug this off, but maybe a smaller startup might. Just some basic paperwork showig a time line is enough to make many companies settle out of court.
Basically, the law is the law. If a country is in such a state that laws are routinely ignored with impunity because prosecution or lawsuits never happen, then that country needs fixing.
Re: (Score:3)
"They aren't aggrieved or informed parties in the alleged matters, they're ..."
They were told not to rock the boat, no need to search for legal reasons. ...
It the same as rapes in universities, army, navy,
Is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Uber is a criminal organization.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Uber is a criminal organization.
Why? There's no obligation to report crimes to the police. And there's nothing to stop victims of crime from reporting directly to the police themselves, which is the probably the best thing to do anyway. Why are people relying on their ride service to handle law enforcement?
Re:Is that legal? (Score:4, Informative)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
Yea, try again. Uber is CA-based. They are absolutely legally obligated to report.
Re: (Score:2)
This is California. Uber's contractors are now employees, and Uber is now an accessory. But frankly, if customers are being assaulted by their contractors and they know it's happening, they're accessories anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Prosecutors might also charge someone with accessory after the fact under penal code 32, if he or she engaged in conduct such as knowingly sheltering the principal offender after the offense.
But then you wouldn't go reading the ENTIRETY of the code, would you, coward?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no obligation to report crimes to the police.
Oh yes there is. It's your civic duty. Not doing so makes you an accomplice. Now whether the government wishes to prosecute or not is up to the prosecutor - but you are liable from that moment on.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes there is. It's your civic duty. Not doing so makes you an accomplice. Now whether the government wishes to prosecute or not is up to the prosecutor - but you are liable from that moment on.
In general, no. There is a law called "Misprision of felony" but:
The factual basis of defendant's plea does not demonstrate the existence of "concealment," an essential element of the offense of misprision. The record of defendant's plea fails to reveal that he took " affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principals. (...) The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. section 4.
There are various other laws that generally involve the protection of minors since they're not full adults capable of looking out for their own legal interests, usually restricted to particularly professions and particular crimes though in some states it's a general obligation to report child abuse/neglect. But if an adult claims to have been raped but don't press charges on their own there's no obligation for you to do it on their behalf. Rem
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes there is. It's your civic duty. Not doing so makes you an accomplice.
If you're normal, you've seen plenty of crimes in your life that you didn't report on.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there is a liability obligation to report crimes. If someone can show that Uber not reporting a crime lead to the criminal attacking other people, they could make Uber liable for what happened and see a big payout.
We have seen this often with organizations that chose to cover up crimes instead of reporting them.
Misprision of felony (Score:3)
Concealment of a known felony, or "misprision of felony", is an offense under United States federal law (18 U.S.C. 4)
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Not reporting != concealment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not thin, either. It's even laid down in the Constitution: you have the right to remain silent.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like Uber is a criminal organization.
Oh come now, it's not like Uber took the confessions and then actively moved the confessors across state lines to avoid prosecution, like the Catholic church does.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Uber an organized crime company? Almost certainly.
Look on the bright side (Score:3)
At least they're not a taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah , they showed up in less than an hour and didn't ask you how much you had in your wallet when it was time to pay.
Great (Score:2)