Uber Will Need To Fingerprint Drivers In California To Transport Teens (techcrunch.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Uber has 30 days to require certain drivers to get fingerprinted if the ride-hail giant intends to continue transporting unaccompanied teens in California. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a ruling Thursday that requires taxi and ride-hail drivers who are carrying unaccompanied minors in the state to pass a fingerprint background check. The ruling also requires transport companies to pay for the cost of those background checks. "When an adult is being tasked to provide a service to a minor, the adult is placed in a position of trust, responsibility, and control over California's most vulnerable citizenry -- children," reads the decision. "Not conducting a fingerprint-based background check to identify adults with disqualifying arrests or criminal records would place the unaccompanied minor in a potentially dangerous, if not life-threatening situation." [...]
The CPUC's ruling also requires transport companies that intend to transport minors share information with the agency on how they implement live trip tracking for parents, what safety procedures they implement at pickup and drop-off locations, and what sort of driver training the companies implement specifically around transporting unaccompanied minors. The ruling also says that each company is responsible for paying for the checks. Uber has also argued against this stipulation, saying that forcing the company -- which has a market cap of around $150 billion as of December -- to pay for fingerprinting would result in a price hike for the Uber for Teens service.
The CPUC's ruling also requires transport companies that intend to transport minors share information with the agency on how they implement live trip tracking for parents, what safety procedures they implement at pickup and drop-off locations, and what sort of driver training the companies implement specifically around transporting unaccompanied minors. The ruling also says that each company is responsible for paying for the checks. Uber has also argued against this stipulation, saying that forcing the company -- which has a market cap of around $150 billion as of December -- to pay for fingerprinting would result in a price hike for the Uber for Teens service.
Yeah ok (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Yeah ok (Score:2)
Also, adults *NEVER* get assaulted in an Uber, therefore background checks for their drivers are superfluous.
Re: (Score:1)
You're right. Non-transportation (rideshare/taxi/bus/train/airplaine) drivers never pick up and transport teens. Also, Uber et al don't keep any records. Oh! Wait. They actually do. The CA legislature must be incredibly stupid.
I think this will be struck down because its too targeted. Also, are they going to require every factory worker's fingerprints for self-driving cars? Is this why GM is closing Cruise?
Law will not Help Anyone (Score:2)
Also, adults *NEVER* get assaulted in an Uber, therefore background checks for their drivers are superfluous.
That's an argument for all online and traditional taxi drivers to be fingerprinted to be able to have any paying passenger in the car, not just for children. That would at least be an enforceable and consistent law. Implementing it for children only is likely to have two consequences: only a few drivers will bother to get fingerprinted so it will greatly limit the number of cars available for minors and so the second consequence is that the minors will just use their parent's account or lie about their age
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely, that's what I think makes sense. What the CPUC is proposing doesn't.
Re: Yeah ok (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I was fingerprinted when I was a Boy Scout leader.
It took about five minutes of my time.
It was done at the neighborhood elementary school.
This isn't an onerous requirement.
More regulations (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In California, the answer to any problem is more regulations.
Just California?
How do you think other states would address this issue?
Does the Uber driver (Score:2)
have to 'card' any customer they pick up?
Re: Does the Uber driver (Score:2)
Of course not.
Re: Does the Uber driver (Score:1)
In TFA but not TFS... (Score:4, Informative)
...I saw this:
The CPUC’s ruling is bad news for Uber, which launched Uber for Teens in California in February 2024, but good news for HopSkipDrive, a startup that provides a ride-sharing service for kids and advocated in favor of this ruling.
HopSkipDrive refers to its drivers as “CareDrivers” and says they all have caregiving experience and go through a 15-point certification before being onboarded — including a fingerprint-based background check. The startup also uses telematics to detect unsafe driving behavior and enable real-time ride tracking, and has a dedicated team monitoring each ride.
[...] HopSkipDrive pays for the cost of fingerprint checks for its drivers. The Commission wrote in its ruling that “if small [transportation network companies] like HopSkipDrive can cover the cost of a TrustLine background check, Uber should do so as well.”
I don't see a downside in any of this, only an upside. I'm not sure how Uber can object.
Re: In TFA but not TFS... (Score:2)
It's got a non zero impact to their bottom line. Of course they will object.
Re: In TFA but not TFS... (Score:2)
Not need. Children outside California will be safe from this regulation. /s
Re: In TFA but not TFS... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's got a non zero impact to their bottom line. Of course they will object.
But with what argument? That's the point.
If Uber tries to claim the requirement is onerous, then the small startup provides a counter-example. (Yes, I know the startup supported the rule, no doubt with the hope it would irritate Uber.)
As TFA points out, Uber and Lyft argued against fingerprinting in the past, for its drivers in general. Uber had an interesting argument then. From TFA:
Uber has a history of fighting back against fingerprint-based background check requirements for drivers. Seven years ago, Uber and Lyft blocked a similar effort in California to fingerprint drivers. The company has argued that its current name-based background checks and other guardrails are sufficient, and that such an inconvenient step would discourage drivers from signing up to the platform and would disproportionately affect minorities.
[Emphasis mine.] So, is Uber saying that minorities on average would be less likely to pass fingerprint checks?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure their highly paid lawyers will think of a plausible reason/excuse to oppose this. But it all comes down to money. Name-based checks can be done electronically. Fingerprint checks cannot. Even if the number of drivers who fail is extremely low, the cost of administering the fingerprinting and background checks for everybody is not. I had not heard that Uber claimed to oppose background checks due to minority impact, but that's rich.
Re: (Score:2)
It's got a non zero impact to their bottom line.
It could have a positive impact on their bottom line if more people use the service because it's perceived as safer.
Google says the FBI fingerprint check costs $51.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes of course, in theory, it could. In reality, how many current riders are currently aware that the drivers haven't had their fingerprints and background checked ?
And of those who are, how many are foregoing rides because of the lack thereof ?
Maybe we can find out. Uber can using branding to extract even more money out of this.
They could come up with different levels of service based on the level of background check.
For example, Uber pink for petite single women riders, where drivers are checked against th
Re: (Score:3)
And of those who are, how many are foregoing rides because of the lack thereof ?
Uber allows female drivers to be assigned only female riders. This can be turned on or off at will, so a female driver might pick up male passengers during daylight but only female passengers after dark.
Uber says it receives many requests for an "only female driver" feature. Although that feature isn't currently offered, there is clearly demand for it.
So, it appears that a significant number of women don't currently feel safe using Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I did not know about this Uber feature. Allowing male riders to request female drivers could be abused, though.
These features can be complementary with the fingerprinting/background checks, not exclusive of each other.
Re: In TFA but not TFS... (Score:2)
Children? (Score:2)
What about my stock price? Think of the stock price!
Unacceptable (Score:2, Insightful)
>"issued a ruling Thursday that requires taxi and ride-hail drivers who are carrying unaccompanied minors in the state to pass a fingerprint background check."
This is wrong on so many levels. Those who are fingerprinted essentially are suspected of a crime and have to prove their innocence from the day prints are collected until the day they die. Every time a set of prints from a crime scene is run against the database, it is casting an unbelievably wide net by searching every person's prints. And onc
Re: (Score:3)
There is no reason to fingerprint someone to run a "background check." You just need a valid ID
Fingerprints can be used to check for matches against unsolved crimes, casting a wider net than just an ID.
IDs can be faked much easier than fingerprints.
The same kind we use to board planes, buy guns, drive a car, present to the police
Buying a gun is a constitutional right. The others have minimal consequences for misidentification. It's not like a child molester is more likely to hijack a plane.
as proof of citizenship
A DL or state ID is not proof of citizenship.
It sounds more like they want an elaborate "precrime" scheme
No. They want a simple precrime scheme.
which we absolutely should not support.
Don't like it? Then don't apply for a job that requires you to be alone with children.
Re: Taxis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about school teachers - they should be print scanned too, along with candy store clerks and playground maintainers.
You are likely not aware of the multitude of regulations in both California, and at the Federal level, that already require that individuals that interact with unaccompanied minors need to have a background check. That a taxi service did not have to previously do so is more of an anomaly.
Why just kids? (Score:3)
"Kids" seems an odd place to draw the line in this case. I think most adults also are a bit vulnerable stepping into a complete stranger's car and might also prefer not to be assaulted?
unaccompanied minors (Score:2)
What if there are 2 minors taking the same Uber?
What if one of them has a musical instrument?