Uber Will Need To Fingerprint Drivers In California To Transport Teens (techcrunch.com) 98
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Why would they need someone who put the tires on a car to go through a background check to allow someone else to drive the car?
DO YOU ask your mechanic if he stole gum while putting in your car's radiator?
The CA legislature must be incredibly stupid.
Noooo. That's you, bud. You are incredibly stupid.
Some people in America now think it's ok to copy stupid people in power, by asking idiotic rhetorical questions filled with word salad.
More importantly, what fucking idiot upvoted this coward's post?
Some form of existing taxicab laws apply (Score:2)
https://www.quora.com/How-old-... [quora.com]
Quote
I manage/dispatch for a taxi company and when the phone rings and the person request a cab, I send it. There have been times that after the ride was done a parent would call me asking if we picked up at such an address and where they were going. (It is illegal for me to give that info out unless the police are involved) They would proceed to say that it was their 12 or 14 year old child. Unfortunately when people call for a cab we don’t ask their age so we are una
Reactive vs Preemptive (Score:2)
Also, Uber et al don't keep any records. Oh! Wait. They actually do.
Searching through records after the fact is after the fact, reactive. Performing a background check beforehand is preemptive.
I think this will be struck down because it's too targeted.
I think you mean "too broad", but it is targeted and that is why it's perfectly legal. Its requiring background check on defacto taxi drivers, where regulating and requiring background checks on taxi drivers has an established legal history.
Law will not Help Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
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 for their own accounts.
The result is that it will do little to nothing to protect kids while doing absolutely nothing to protect adults. If you insisted on it for all drivers in order to be able to take pahing passengers then it would protect everyone and it's a lot easier to enforce when every driver has to have it for any trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely, that's what I think makes sense. What the CPUC is proposing doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The result is that it will do little to nothing to protect kids while doing absolutely nothing to protect adults.
Not quite. When you implement a system like this "voluntarily" the result is you build up a system that will just efficiently cover its own arse inadvertently achieving the goal.
What's easier: Uber carefully co-ordinating how it measures who is and isn't a minor and opening themselves to liability of not vetting its contractors, or ... Uber just fingerprinting everyone, achieving the goal of universal coverage for the law like you proposed?
Bonus points for pressure on the otherway: "Your honour, we noticed
Re: (Score:2)
If you've bren binging CSI / Law and Order every day, then maybe treating a whole profession as criminals so that you can have police apply some junk science would make sense.. since it's actually a pretty fuckin stupid idea
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: Yeah ok (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant? We're talking specifically about the Uber for Teens service here....
TFS already stated this would be for “certain” drivers. Meaning those who have taken and passed the fingerprint and background screening. If you are NOT one of those drivers for Uber and was deceived by the adult customer who swapped themselves for a minor, then you are breaking corporate policy and possibly California law by completing that ride.
Parents point is valid and relevant. Adults who pull that should be forced to pay for a new driver and compensate the “wrong” one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because unless Uber's kind enough to put "would be illegal to give a ride to a minor" for their reason for rejection, it counts against their ride stats and could cost them their ability to get jobs from Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't turn an honest mistake into an excusse [sic] for compensation. Don't be entitled. Do business. It happens. Move on.
Err.. it's not an "excuse" for compensation, there was cost involved to get to the pickup point (and get back to the point of origin, or to another pickup location). Why should the driver bear those costs instead of the person that tried to subvert the system in the first place for a cheaper ride?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? This is stupid. People should take fucking responsibility for once.
Taking responsibility would be calling the special Uber service for kids with background checked drivers, not calling standard Uber.
If their customer is substituting a minor instead of themselves, then people should say no, I can't drive a minor, get someone else. How is that difficult?
The parent caused the driver a cost by driving to the pickup and discovering the ride was for a child, plus there is a secondary cost of the adult ride lost because they chose to respond to an unknowing child ride. The parent cost the driver money, the parent is the person responsible, the parent should compensate the driver.
Don't turn an honest mistake into an excusse for compensation.
It's not an honest mistake if the terms of the servic
Re: (Score:2)
and was deceived by the adult customer who swapped themselves for a minor
I agree. We should throw the adult in jail for child endangerment if something happens to the minor. You can't create a perfect society, but you can provide services that allow you to identify the imperfect members of society and make sure they have a label and a target on their back when something goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your teen will always be matched with highly rated and experienced drivers"... They are selling this as a "safer" Uber.
Make that highly rated, experienced, and background checked drivers and this Uber service becomes even safer.
Plus, taxi drivers are historically background checked. So should Uber drivers who are defacto taxi drivers. The notion of two nearby people sharing a ride somewhere is a long dead fiction, its now a driver going where the other person wants because they are paid, not because they were coincidentally going there while about their own business.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I dead that as "fingered" - still a valid response.
Re: (Score:2)
Goes both ways. When these organizations hire known abusers, people ask how can that happen and why is there nothing in place to prevent it.
Re: Yeah ok (Score:2)
and it does nothing to protect the kids.
True. Sort of.
It scares away a few people with existing criminal records. Who might try to apply for a driving job under a false name. Fingerprinted AND licensed makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I was fingerprinted when I was in elementary school. Every child in school was. Not sure if this practice still takes place or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I was fingerprinted when I was in elementary school. Every child in school was. Not sure if this practice still takes place or not.
Those fingerprints were not sent to the FBI.
Mine were.
More regulations (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
In California, the answer to any problem is more regulations.
Yes, that's generally how countries work. If there's a problem, i.e. one that isn't solved with existing structures, create new structures to solve it. That's literally the entire point of the government.
What's the American no government solution? give teen semi automatic weapons to defend themselves? And when a rogue driver gets a fully automatic weapon, arm the teens with an M26?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's generally how countries work. If there's a problem, i.e. one that isn't solved with existing structures, create new structures to solve it. That's literally the entire point of the government.
The problem is that we rarely go through and examine those structures to see if they're effective at purpose, cost effective, if there's a more efficient way to do something, etc...
For example, the mandate for electronic trucker logs was passed to cut down on cheating. However, the real reason for trucker logs is supposedly to ensure safe driving, that the driver isn't too tired and all that.
Trucking accidents went up when electronic logs were mandated, as an example. The requirement didn't go away:
https: [cdllife.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Regulations should be well considered, designed, and effective" is not the novel observation you think it is.
Pointing out one regulation that had the opposite effect is also not the argument against regulations, in toto, you think it is.
"Regulations bad" is the position of somebody who finds the act of thinking about things exhausting.
You used a word "rarely" up there, but the onus is on you to actually back that up with an argument, not a single point of data. Frankly, if you want to hold that as an opini
Re: (Score:2)
That's odd, I don't remember making an argument against regulations 'in toto'. It isn't a position I hold, so it is hard for me to think my arguing that regulations should be regularly examined should extend to arguing against regulations in total rather than, you know, arguing that we should occasionally examine them for adjustment.
"Regulations bad" is the position of somebody who finds the act of thinking about things exhausting.
I've never found thinking about stuff exhausting, but you're clearly having a good time with your strawman.
I gave a quick example, I'm not writing for a think tank right now.
I
Re: (Score:2)
the answer to any problem is more regulations.
Why don't they have more faith in the free market sorting this out for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the free market has yet to earn that faith?
Re: (Score:2)
We've only been trying laissez-faire capitalism out for 250 years or so. I think we should at least give it an even 500 years before giving up on the idea. If that doesn't work we should revert to mercantilism or feudalism until we can find something better.
Its purely a coincidence but it happens (Score:2)
In California, the answer to any problem is more regulations.
Absolutely true, but on very rare occasions they propose a regulation that makes sense. Its purely a coincidence but it happens.
Person fingerprinted to become an Uber Driver (Score:2)
Because what "NEVER" happens is that an adult with an account schedules the ride for the minor and the unsuspecting or indiscriminate driver comes and picks up said minor to take them wherever.
How would that matter? If all Uber drivers are fingerprinted and background checked for a criminal record as a condition of working for Uber, then the driver who happens to drive into that situation is already checked.
Re: Person fingerprinted to become an Uber Driver (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew anything about Uber, youd know not all drivers are fingerprinted and that joke of a background check is meaningless.
Apologies if I was not clear, but when I wrote "If all Uber drivers are fingerprinted and background checked" I was referring to the proposed plan not the current situation.
The background check will find prior criminal convictions. That is far better than doing nothing.
Re: Yeah ok (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Does the Uber driver (Score:2)
I have teens and don't own a car, and there's a handful of places they have to go
Then you book the ride and accompany them. Or are you the sort of parent who dumps their kids on the city bus with all the hobos playing pocket pool?
But I'd be in favor of mandating public transit must go everywhere
We've had a few bus routes relocated or closed because local residents didn't want stinky diesels driving through their neighborhoods. Because of the children.
Re: (Score:2)
And how's that work when you have multiple teens that need to go to different places at the same time? (Actually, how does driving them work in that situation?)
Concatenated rides for each kid. First out is billed for pickup to destination 1. Second out pays for destination 1 to destination 2. ... Last out pays for destination n -1 to destination n.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen a diesel public transport bus in like 20 years. School buses, sure, but I'm starting to see those get converted too, but slower. In downtown Cleveland, they use a combination of natural gas, propane, and hydrogen. Just double checked and, yep, they started switching in 2004. Where I live now uses electric, natural gas, and propane buses. Nice and quiet.
Not everywhere has terrible public transportation and terrible citizens. Good luck in your shithole of a town or wherever.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple years ago when I was driving for Uber and Lyft, I has rides for underaged teenagers twice. Both times they setup the ride themselves from their own phones. I'm pretty sure there were no age restrictions at the time. If you had access to a credit/debt card that could be charged by Uber, that's all you needed. Whether these kids had their own or were using parents is irrelevant. Anyway, one was picked up from school and going home. Why weren't they using the bus? I don't know. Maybe they missed it. M
Parent's would sign up their children (Score:2)
Why not just ban teens from the service? Under 18 can't legally engage in any contract. Where are the parents in all this, shouldn't they be giving their kids rides?
Isn't it the parents signing up for the uber for kids service, the kids be enrolled by the parent? Not the kids signing themselves up?
I did not sign up to play little league baseball. My parent's signed up for their specified children to play little league baseball.
In TFA but not TFS... (Score:5, 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:3)
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:3)
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: In TFA but not TFS... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Should we initiate fingerprinting for every parent? How about mandatory DNA testing at birth? I don’t see any downsides here. Only upsides. You must be some kind of monster if you object.
You’re right. You don’t see how Uber can reject. Because they can’t. Is THIS how we want to re-define “competition”? Painting the competition as a monster in marketing? Pushing for legal regulation to squeeze out the “enemy”? Keep circling the drain lower and lower wi
Re:In TFA but not TFS... (Score:4, Informative)
Should we initiate fingerprinting for every parent?
Why would we? The point of the fingerprinting system is to establish a trust between unknown parties outside the guardianship of the parent. Please understand what is being talked about here before you run off with a slippery slope built entirely out of strawmen.
Re: (Score:2)
Should we initiate fingerprinting for every parent?
Why would we? The point of the fingerprinting system is to establish a trust between unknown parties outside the guardianship of the parent. Please understand what is being talked about here before you run off with a slippery slope built entirely out of strawmen.
Please understand where this is going. The point of fingerprinting is to eliminate that risk BEFORE it even gets a chance to become one. You screen your fucking suspected criminals BEFORE you hire them. If we start “justifying” fingerprinting AFTER the fact, then be prepared for that pre-crime norm to follow you. In your job and life. Everywhere.
Think it won’t? When the corporate liability insurance provider tells the CEO they can save 10% on liability insurance premiums if they fing
Re: (Score:2)
Think it won’t?
No of course I don't think it won't. It will. Most other western nations already do this. Screening employees in sensitive positions is literally the norm. What is actually really funny is that back when we did it with cards every fucking department in one country I worked in chose blue. I had to have a blue card to work with children. I had to have a blue card (different one) to work on a ship yard. And there was a construction worker's blue card as well but that wasn't for working in sensitive areas but r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
The thing is, when an Uber driver get banned he just joins onto someone elses communal account and drives under their ID. Uber knows this, depends on it to keep prices down and prevent drivers from organising.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, when an Uber driver get banned he just joins onto someone elses communal account and drives under their ID. Uber knows this, depends on it to keep prices down and prevent drivers from organising.
Please explain how this works. All I can parse from your post is that Uber wants to keep the bar low, so that the riffraff can sign up to drive.
People who share an account are undermining even Uber's attempt to screen drivers. If that's happening, then stricter regulations and penalties for non-compliance seem inevitable. And those should be applied to Uber and its non-compliant drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
How does a fingerprint tell you anything about someone's background?
It can tell you a whole lot about a criminal's background.
Moreover, how does it prevent a person doing something bad in future?
If a fingerprint-check reveals that a person has a history of doing bad things that disqualify them from driving kids in an Uber, then the person is not hired, thus preventing said person from doing something bad in the future.
Children? (Score:2)
What about my stock price? Think of the stock price!
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Were here reading about how the competition (HopSkipDrive), is (ab)using legislation in order to “compete” against Uber.
What makes you assume the next round of “friendly” competition won’t be corporate liability insurance providers?
(Insurance Rep) “You know, you could save 10% if you agree to fingerprint ALL of your employees. For safety reasons of course.”
I think you already know how slippery this slope already is, greased with Greed. No minors needed. I can al
Re: (Score:3)
The first time I can remember being fingerprinted wasn't because I was suspected of a crime, it was because I was joining the Navy and getting fingerprinted was part of the process. In fact, I can't remember ever having my prints taken that wasn't simply part of a routine.
Re: (Score:2)
Same deal with me. I was fingerprinted for my TS clearance, had DNA taken so they could identify my body if the worst case happened, etc...
After that, I've mostly been fingerprinted for things like firearm licenses.
That said, I can't help but think that it might be considered more a psychological barrier - if I'm a criminal, do I take the risk of either having my fingerprints taken right now associated with a past crime, or messing up in the future and having them look back and figure out it's me from this
Re: Taxis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Why just kids? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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?
Re: (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?
Then maybe those adults should ask themselves why they were not demanding the fingerprints of taxi cab drivers decades ago?
If our world today is SO much more dangerous, then why the hell are people still getting into any strangers car for ANY reason? Either this was justified decades ago, or we’re believing the bullshit fearmongering with zero statistics to validate it. Which is it?
Offer 2-tiers for adults, Re:Why just kids? (Score:2)
> why they were not demanding the fingerprints of taxi cab drivers decades ago?
Probably because it wasn't a reoccurring problem. Then again, politicians often invent or over-magnify problems in order to get credit for fixing such.
I wonder if Uber can offer a 2-tiered service for adults also: pay more to get heavier-vetted drivers.
unaccompanied minors (Score:4, Funny)
What if there are 2 minors taking the same Uber?
What if one of them has a musical instrument?
Re: (Score:2)
What if we just ignore legal definitions and just make up things blindly?
"Yes your honour I did sell 20kg of speed at that rave. Can you give me the $50 fine for speeding and send me on my way? "
Re: (Score:2)
What if there are 2 minors taking the same Uber? What if one of them has a musical instrument?
Top Gear demonstrated you can get an Oompah band in the back of a 90's saloon car, so I don't think a tuba will present any issue.
Correction (Score:2)
Should read as the Ruling requires customers to pay for this service
In NYC the cost is about $20 more per ride
Sales of fingerprint overlays increase. (Score:2)
\o/ (Score:1)
Host: On today's show, we'll be creating legislative market opportunity for...
*Pretty assistant spins wheel*
DING DING: Fingerprints as a Service SaaS app.