Uber Suspends Australian Transport Inspector Accounts To Block Stings

jaa101 writes In Australia Uber is reportedly suspending the accounts used by government transport inspectors conducting sting operations. The article suggests that a new handset, credit card and email account are all needed to get a new, unblocked account. If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines. Presumably the Uber app can block based on IMEI, SIM and/or phone number.

Comments

Are you trying to get legislation?

[rebelwarlock]

Because that's how you get legislation.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets run with that idea for a sec. Governments are dissolved and everyone is an individual with the freedom to do, say, think and be whomever they want.

Unfortunately not everyone in the world believes in the 'better future for all', and will cramp other's individualistic freedom to better their own.

So suddenly, a group of individuals band together in order to safeguard their shared beliefs and ideals from those that would take them.

Of course, working in a group is hard, so there has to be some ground rules in place to keep most people happy. Tim, don't use Joe's mug. Larry, quit hogging all the apples to yourself, Tim would like at least one a day.

"But Larry likes apples, who are you to say who can and can't eat 7 apples a day huh?!?"
Well, SOMEONE'S gotta set boundaries right? and Tim agrees with me, right? Joe, you happy as well? So it's settled! Most people are happy! ...and suddenly we're back to square one.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Moru74]

We don't have to look very far to see where this is going, just look at what happens in Syria and Iraq right now. This is what happens when there is no government. I don't believe we western countries are any different.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[gnupun]

Governments are mafia and they do break legs and kidnap and murder people. Legislation? Nice business you have here, too bad something should happen to it.

Next you're going to say anyone who's read a few medical books and taken a few online medical courses can set up a website to start treating patients, like a doctor would. The govts should answer this question: Does the medallion system exist to restrict the number of taxi drivers so as to keep the fares high (and the profits high for taxi companies)?

A bigger question here is should part-time, low-paid freelancers like uber drivers be allowed to force out full-time taxi drivers by eating into their business? This has happened before in other fields such as photography (flickr.com).

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[gl4ss]

...you think they're performing sting operations because there isn't legislation?

there is legislation already, so they can do sting operations, it's already forbidden so what the fuck do they lose?

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[DrXym]

Yeah how dare the government impose standards on public transportation like taxis to ensure the next car you step into is roadworthy and isn't driven by a rapist and holding Uber to those standards. The monsters.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Slashjones]

Yeah, pick a fight with government scumbags or huge corporations and you'll get burned. Screw normal people (as business scumbags often do) and you're usually fine.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[N1AK]

A bigger question here is should part-time, low-paid freelancers like uber drivers be allowed to force out full-time taxi drivers by eating into their business?

It's a small, but I tend to think it important, difference but you really should look at the premise as "whether we should restrict people some from being allowed to offer the service in order to protect medallion owners and taxi drivers?". You don't need to do anything to allow something, so the question should by default be whether we should be doing anything.

As to protecting taxi drivers. Firstly I'm not entirely sure that it is Taxi drivers suffering the most, that would be medallion owners, who have shown they only care about protecting their profits not customers. Secondly, progress requires that some roles become less attractive or even cease to exist. Lamp lighters, stable hands, farm workers etc were all massive sources of employment prior to technology making them largely obsolete. Taxi driver is just one of many jobs slowly following the same path. Personally I think autonomous vehicles will almost entirely kill the field within a decade anyway, so Uber is the least of their issues.

Re: Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Within a decade? Exceeding unlikely.

Re: Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a rapist? But what if I want the full India experience?

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[sjwt]

yes, I believe thats the point, to get legislation outlawing the ridiculous prices of over $500,000 to get a license to own a taxi.

http://www.blackandwhitecabs.c...

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you break your leg in an auto accident while riding in an Uber cab, good lucking getting Uber to pay a dime. They will point to the blanket liability waiver you agreed to part of the EULA when using the Uber app absolving Uber of all responsibility in event of personal injury, even in event of gross negligence. Then you will find that the Uber driver's personal insurance policy won't cover your injury because they were illegally operating as livery vehicle and such thus not actually insured.

Oh. You think you can sue Uber to recover the cost of treating your injuries? Well first you will have to invalidate the EULA in court, then you will have to unravel the corporate shell game and pierce the corporate veil to collect any of your damages. Uber's so called insurance company is actually a holding corporation based in the Cayman Islands majority owned by Uber's investors. Uber and James River Insurance is judgement proof.

Intelligent people will realize that this is why we have regulations to require that Taxis have adequate insurance to cover damages. Were talking real insurance by an admitted insurance carrier. Not a phony insurance policy like the one Uber bought from James River.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people are killed or seriously injured each year due to photography accidents, or badly made photos?

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

And? Uber already is illegal in parts of the world. Is there some way of making it even more illegal?

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[pr0fessor]

I can see why Uber would think that the regulation are outrageous. It's a lot easier to convince them to follow the rules when they make sense and are not a huge financial burden. There are some places including where I live that they do follow the rules.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[OhPlz]

Unsafe vehicles and rapists are ok so long as they aren't driving people around for money?

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[tehcyder]

Governments may occasionally act like the Mafia if they are not subject to democratic control and the rule of law, but businesses definitely will act like the Mafia given no democratic control and the rule of law.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[tehcyder]

Uber is not a new technology that will make taxi drivers obsolete, it's just a way of circumventing the rules about being a taxi driver and handing the work to amateurs instead.

And the idea that autonomous vehicles will replace taxis and cars within a decade is frankly laughable. Even if self-driving cars were a technically solved problem, the economics do not stack up, unless someone magically finds a way of making them cheap enough.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber *is* a taxi company. They just derive profit from operating an unlicensed, uninsured, unregulated taxi service, which allows them to undercut *other taxi companies*. What they are doing is not innovative *at all*. They just run the world's largest gypsy cab operation. Woohoo.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

This is exactly the point. Uber is operating outside of the law because the law in this case is retrograde and needs to be updated to allow for the disruptive effects of technology change. Taxi licenses need to be unlimited and much cheaper and available to anyone without them having to join the existing cartels. So yes, Uber is acting outside the existing legal framework to try and force change that will benefit everyone. (There still needs to be regulation here, but it needs to be based on modern realities). Now I've seen this kind of thing before; Napster comes to mind, and they didn't fair so well. But you can't erase a good idea from peoples minds, so change is inevitable, it's just a matter of how long. Uber might just have deep enough pockets to bring that change more quickly.

As a side note; I see nothing wrong with companies violating laws that are clearly wrong, in order to bring about change. The old US of A didn't seem to have a problem with this in their very early days either.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Cederic]

Even if self-driving cars were a technically solved problem, the economics do not stack up, unless someone magically finds a way of making them cheap enough

Well, what I'd do is buy a car and drive it around picking up people from where they are and taking them to where they want to be. I'd charge them a small sum for this service.

You see, that's profitable now. With a self-driving car I wouldn't even need to use my own time driving it, so I could still go out and do my normal job.

The economics are kind of working in my favour. Unless of course everybody else owns a self-driving car, in which case the demand will be far too low to make money offering transportation services. In which case taxis are also going to be in trouble.

Within a decade? Unlikely, but not impossible. Within two decades? Almost certain.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[david_thornley]

Another big question is who's responsible when people are hired or contracted with to do things they do not meet the legal qualifications for.

In many cases, commercial drivers need to have commercial driver's licenses, and commercial insurance. You could argue against the requirement for a special license, I suppose, although it typically is not a barrier, but most places require insurance for drivers, and the typical auto insurance policy won't pay out on an incident related to commercial driving.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[david_thornley]

Frequently, Uber drivers do not have commercial driver's licenses, appropriately inspected vehicles, and are driving uninsured. The laws and regulations involved with those are based on real problems, and are legitimate laws.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

There should be appropriate laws.

Commercial drivers license: If you have a full drivers license and a GPS, what more actually functional skill do you need? What is the point of an additional drivers license?

Appropriate inspected vehicle: This is NSW so that is done every year. Frankly, the most poorly maintained vehicles seem to be Taxi's from my experience, so I don't think a special law is required here.

Insurance: Well that's a given, and from what I understand Uber provide their own insurance, so nothing more to do here

Now I do think that there should be additional regulation. Drivers should be required to pass a police check, not be a registered sex offender, and have a certain standard for their driving record. This would be fair and reasonable. Everything else is government wielding power for the sake of it or trying to protect entrenched interests ($500 000 license? All this extra red tape? For what? Taxis that cannot be found at 2 in the morning?). I fully support disruptive change to this industry, and I believe that it is completely moral for Uber to ignore an outdated legal framework to achieve this.

Re:Are you trying to get legislation?

[Coren22]

Funny, cause Uber already has these standards. Uber does background checks on all drivers.

Extradition?

[aaronb1138]

I am usually extremely against extradition to foreign countries for minor legal infractions, but can Australia go ahead and grab all of the Uber corporate HQ employees under whatever equivalent to RICO, obstruction, and similar organized crime laws they have.

We know Uber is an illegal taxi service in many (most?) jurisdictions in which they operate. I hope that these actions are of a scale and deliberateness to go ahead and start hitting them with the bigger crime laws since most governments have been hesitant to attack the head.

Re:Extradition?

[Beached]

Maybe get a judge/magistrate to order Apple/Google to pull the apps from the store's.

Re:Extradition?

[thegarbz]

Personally I'd rather put them on a pedestal for attempting to circumvent those stupid regulations which cost me $50 for a 10min cab fare. While Uber is undercutting the taxis by more than 50% I won't be doing any complaining.

Why not instead extradite the politicians who caused this shit to begin with?

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.

Re:Extradition?

[ChunderDownunder]

Has Uber been involved in a traffic accident resulting in injury of death?

What is the legal precedent here - can Australians sue a billion dollar US corporation for damages? Their whole business model goes down the toilet if the driver is inadequately insured and unable to pay.

Fuck any EULA on the app, if I were to become paralysed I'd want a 7 figure payout.

Re:Extradition?

[ihtoit]

except in most cases they are insured and they are licensed. What's driving this shit is the large cab companies having a shit fit over the fact that this startup has 1/10 the number of cars in the area yet are doing 10x the business.

Problem for EVERYBODY is that the people who issue the licenses are the people who legislate and the people who prosecute. They all piss in the same pot, so if you get onside with the police, you're onside with the city council as well and they will lick your balls if you pay them enough in backhanders (AKA campaign contributions).

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

uber drivers are not unlicensed. They have the same drivers license every other driver has. Really, that's all that's needed.

Re:Extradition?

[bloodhawk]

uber drivers are not unlicensed. They have the same drivers license every other driver has. Really, that's all that's needed.

if they have the same license as everyone else then they are unlicensed. Most states and territories in Australia require a commercial or public transport license for operating a hire car, taxi or any other public transport which requires a lot more checks than a standard drivers license such as additional medical requirements, police checks and experience. My sister applied for one a few years ago and got rejected because of the drugs she was on after her chemotherapy.

Re:Extradition?

[mjwx]

They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.

In Australia, we have a functional public health system (much like Canada) so if you're in an accident you're covered for medical. However for loss of income, property damage and what not, you'll have to go after the drivers employer, Uber. The standard Uber defence of "he's a contractor" will last about 2 second before being torn to shreds by the dumbest of Australian judges (who will be quite intelligent in their own right mind you), Uber facilitated the transaction, Uber takes the money from the client and gives the money to the driver. If it looks like an employer, walks like an employer and quacks like an employer then in the eyes of the court, it's an employer.

Now this isn't Uber's major problem. Their major problem comes when an insurer gets involved. And you can guarantee in Australia someone they hit will have either motor, property or liability insurance. The insurer will pay out but then will go straight after Uber for the money. The government wont do a thing, unlike with license and insured drivers who receive the protection of government regulations limiting liability, the insurers will be able to go after Uber for everything they're worth. It doesn't matter how deep their pockets are, Uber will not be able to withstand this for long.

However Uber's biggest crime is against the German language by not including the umlaut. For this there is no fine high enough.

Re:Extradition?

[bloodhawk]

except in most cases they are insured and they are licensed. What's driving this shit is the large cab companies having a shit fit over the fact that this startup has 1/10 the number of cars in the area yet are doing 10x the business.

Problem for EVERYBODY is that the people who issue the licenses are the people who legislate and the people who prosecute. They all piss in the same pot, so if you get onside with the police, you're onside with the city council as well and they will lick your balls if you pay them enough in backhanders (AKA campaign contributions).

if you are operating a hire vehicle without a public transport/taxi/hire vehicle license then you actually aren't licensed or insured. Here in Canberra that license is issued by the local motor registry, cab companies and even local government have no say in who is issued one. If you do the police checks, don't have a criminal history, do the medicals and have the required experience and pay for the license anyone can get one, but if you haven't done that then you are unlicensed and uninsured if you are driving any sort of public transport.

Re:Extradition?

[whoever57]

The standard Uber defence of "he's a contractor" will last about 2 second before being torn to shreds by the dumbest of Australian judges (who will be quite intelligent in their own right mind you), Uber facilitated the transaction, Uber takes the money from the client and gives the money to the driver

In just about any jurisdiction, I think that the fact that Uber takes the money puts Uber on the hook for damages. If the passenger pays Uber, then the contract is between the passenger and Uber.

Uber is following the Paypal playbook. Steadfastly deny the obvious ("we are not a bank") until they are established enough to go legit.

Re:Extradition?

[emj]

That's why drivers should have insurance so we don't have to sue them. Cars are involved in accidents quite a lot, they are more dangerous than smoking with all factors included, so of course an Uber car has been in an accident.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, taxi licenses ("medallions") are simply a government scam. They don't benefit anybody.

Re:Extradition?

[stephanruby]

They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.

No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.

Re:Extradition?

[stephanruby]

Why not instead extradite the politicians who caused this shit to begin with?

I personally can't. I don't live in the same city where I work.

I've voted with my feet. It's too bad my workplace hasn't followed suit.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia the question isn't quite so clear cut. If you are one of Ubers ride sharing drivers then unless you have specifically purchased commercial insurance and have obtained a public transport license then you aren't licensed or insured, your personal drivers license and private insurance will not cover you.

Re:Extradition?

[sl149q]

The cost structure for Uber drivers is very similar to taxi services and over time will approach them.

Except for the cost to the taxi operators for their medallion. Since there is a a limited number of medallions and you need one to operate they tend to get transferred at great cost. For example a quick Google query for cost of taxi medallion nyc tells us that the current cost is down to $840,000 from a peak of $1.05 million in June 2013.

So the major cost of operation becomes the cost of financing the medallion. In fact (again according to Google) in most instances the medallions are owned by investment companies and leased to actual drivers.

Uber exists to disrupt the requirement for the medallions. They provide a lower friction billing system that makes it easier for both users and drivers to participate.

The ONLY people who are against Uber in the long term are the current owners of medallions. If Uber succeeds their investments will be valueless.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

This always brings up a question for me that I never see answered. Is it illegal for my friend to pay me for a ride? I'm not in business to provide rides, so I'm not a commercial operation, but when I accept money, that's commerce and a business transaction. The line is less clear than it should be. Uber is in the business of connecting people who will pay for rides with people who will give them with some checks to make sure the people involved are trustworthy. That's a taxi business as far as I can see... but really, what is the difference between that and me taking money from a friend?

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

And their vehicles are checked for public safety by...who exactly. That is what part of the cost of commercial licensing and permits cover. There is nothing more that I want to do than step into an unsafe junker driven by a stranger who couldn't be bothered to get proper license and insurance. But it's cheaper so it must be okay.

Re:Extradition?

[houghi]

If your friend is driving from point A to point B and you drive in the same direction and you decide to share the costs: No problem. It does not even have to be your friend.

The moment YOU decide where you go and the driver had previously no intention of going there and you pay him for that ride, at that moment you are a business and you fall under business regulations.

And when you suddenly have hundreds of friends who you drive around all day for money it becomes even clearer.

The line is only not clear if you don't want it to be.

Re:Extradition?

[Sabriel]

The difference is that Uber is doing it for the money.

Is your friend paying you more than the cost to you of providing the ride? Are you participating in a scheme that arranges rides for money (whether the money goes to you or someone else)? Would your vehicle's insurer consider it to be commercial use of the vehicle? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", what you are doing could well be illegal without registering as a commercial operation.

You want anything more technical or accurate than that, ask a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Extradition?

[Harlequin80]

While this may be the case in some parts of the world it is not true here in Australia.

Uber is operating a taxi service but not operating under the laws that govern taxis. In Australia taxis are considered a part of the wider public transport system and are factored into planning around things like trains and bus services. As a result taxi drivers have a number of restrictions on them. Possibly the most important of those is they cannot refuse a fare. It doesn't matter that your house is miles away from any other chance of a fare they have to take you.

The net impact of this is that taxis have to take on jobs which are nominally a net loss. This is then made up by other routes being more profitable. Uber comes in and says we don't need to participate in this, we will just cherry pick the profitable routes. As a result the taxis that are required to never say no start to lose money and a key part of your cities public transport infrastructure starts to collapse.

So Uber's cost structure attempts to avoid the cost of the taxi plate, and to avoid the greater good requirements placed on taxi firms. The net effect is not positive.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation."

False. Maybe _you_ should do some research.

Uber's alleged insurance covers you from the time you *accept* a job, not from when you're logged in. Many personal insurance polices will stop covering you when you make yourself available for commercial jobs, meaning a gap of no insurance between turning the app on and accepting a fare.
I'll also note that the USD$1 million policy with a USD$1000 excess is paltry compared to the norm for even personal insurance let alone commercial insurance in Australia.
For instance I have a AUD$600 excess and coverage up to AUD$20 million.

Also, Australia has Compulsory Third Party (CTP) injury insurance that is (normally, at least in QLD) part of the car registration. Personal insurance adds property damage, and driver injury insurance on top of this, not instead of. For you to have a qualifying third party insurance policy, your car must be registered as a commercial vehicle. UberX drivers with non-commercially registered vehicles are essentially driving an unregistered/uninsured car when they accept a fare, on top of not having a license that allows them to have commercial passengers.

So far the authorities have just been going after the driver for the driver license authorisation issue. But they could start impounding unregistered cars if Uber escalates.

Re:Extradition?

[houghi]

This might be true for New York. It isn't for the rest of the world where you can become a taxi driver if you like to.

Have a car, get the proper licence and insurance. Ploof, you are a taxidriver. It is part two and three that are the issue. If they would have the proper licence and insurance, nobody would bat an eye.

Re:Extradition?

[Richard_at_work]

http://www.london24.com/news/u...

http://www.citylab.com/commute...

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/...

Re: Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is correct. The cost of a taxi license ('medallion' to Americans) is around $500,000 in Queensland (one of the states in Australia. ) At reasonable rates of return we are talking about $150-200 per day to have the right to operate a taxi.

That's the reason why uber can undercut licensed taxi services - not insurance, licensing, background checks or all of the other ancillary services, which cost a lot less than $150 per day.

It's a terrible public policy that results in high cost taxi services which means the disadvantaged can't afford that type of public transport when some of the time they otherwise would.

Of course if Uber were allowed to operate without those licenses the value of a license would presumably drop to close to zero, making a lot of private investors / owners of taxi licenses very angry.

Personally I find Uber's arrogance breathtaking, and as a public prosecutor I would do my best to punish them - however if they have found a way to do this safely (if not legally) for everyone involved I have to say it's good for Australia to have the debate about why we should continue to have a rent seeking license cartel type arrangement that delivers little if any public benefit.

Re:Extradition?

[Richard_at_work]

We don't have a medallion system here in the UK, so explain why there are people against here here...

Here, a 3 year license to operate a taxi will typically set you back £355 for the drivers license, £600 for the vehicle license (vehicle under 3 years old) and £460 for the operator license (covers up to 5 vehicles). Private hire vehicles are slightly cheaper.

£1,500 for a 3 year license to operate a taxi - that's not exactly a massive investment nor is it a huge barrier to entry. Pay that money, pass the tests and you have yourself the ability to start earning money by operating a taxi.

Taxi fares are also fixed in the UK by the local councils, so there is no gouging or "surge pricing". You can calculate how much your fare is going to be before you even get into the taxi.

Re:Extradition?

[gnasher719]

No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.

Research yourself. Uber may pay if they are driving a passenger. However, at any other time the Uber driver will find himself uninsured. That includes for example hitting a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Uber car drivers have COMMERCIAL insurance on their vehicles?

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

The line is only not clear if you don't want it to be.

Well, that's the point. Many of us don't want it to be, because we don't feel that accepting money for an activity inherently changes its nature. If it's not safe for J. Random Driver to carry a passenger for hire, then it's not safe for them to carry anyone, including themselves, and we should just abolish cars.

If it's not safe for a person to carry hire passengers, then it's just not safe for them to be driving, because someone (them) might get hurt. Either that driver and that car are qualified to be on the road, or they aren't. Since taxi driving is no different from any other kind of driving — you are still required to follow precisely the same motor vehicle laws — there is no justification for any kind of special license before someone is permitted to do it. You could say the same about anything else that taxi licenses are supposed to protect you from, like assaults by taxi drivers which happen all the time. If people aren't capable of being on the street without attacking people, they don't belong on the street in or out of a taxi.

The line is not clear because it's not clear what the public gains from taxi licenses. It's clear what the government gains, though.

Re:Extradition?

[thegarbz]

They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.

Except that this is Australia. The two requirements for any driver in Australia regardless if they are a moped or a monstertruck is that they are licensed and the vehicle is registered. In all states registration is combined with compulsory 3rd party insurance a service that is heavily regulated with the only thing varying between vendors is the price and even then not by much.

There is no difference in the insurance coverage between a registered taxi and any driver regardless if they are registered with Uber or not.
The difference is driving skill is probably quite high as most licensed taxi drivers act like they got their license from a cereal box.

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.

Research yourself. Uber may pay if they are driving a passenger. However, at any other time the Uber driver will find himself uninsured. That includes for example hitting a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger.

No, no he will not, and that is a typically but staggeringly stupid thing for you to say. That driver is already covered by his own legally-mandated insurance if he hits a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger. If the legally mandated minimum insurance is not sufficient to cover that case, then there is an argument for increasing it, but it is no argument against Uber.

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

For you to have a qualifying third party insurance policy, your car must be registered as a commercial vehicle. UberX drivers with non-commercially registered vehicles are essentially driving an unregistered/uninsured car

Yes, a "qualifying" one. Just like the USA doesn't recognize any medical study that hasn't met specific and meaningless requirements so that we can claim that "no studies exist" which say stupid, clearly false things like that there's no health benefits to MMJ. What a fucking sheep you are, bend over while I get the mint jelly.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Yes, a "qualifying" one.'

Despite your allusions of conspiracy.

All qualifying means is that it meets the minimum terms set by the Compulsory Third Party (CTP) scheme in Queensland. (http://www.maic.qld.gov.au/about-maic/index.shtml)

This scheme is 20 years old, well respected, and is not some conspiracy against Uber. Uber's "insurance" doesn't qualify, as it:
- Not provided by a licensed insurer (Not hard)
- Only covers the driver for part of the time
- Falls far short of the unlimited liability requirement.
- All policies charge a surcharge for the Nominal Defendant fund (protects victims of uninsured drivers)

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, no he will not"

Yes he will.
The GP used the example " if he hits a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger" because that _exact_ situation occurred in California and both the driver's personal insurance and Uber declined insurance.

"That driver is already covered by his own legally-mandated insurance"
That policy is worth nothing if the driver operates outside the restrictions of that policy. There are reasons beyond conspiracy why a taxi policy is more expensive than a personal policy, and why a personal policy doesn't cover taxi service.

Re:Extradition?

[PhilHibbs]

I'm astonished that Apple haven't done this already. An app that's designed purely for violating the law, that should be a no-brainer-ban.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the rapes

Chicago

Boston

Los Angeles

India

Re:Extradition?

[0123456]

Taxi fares are also fixed in the UK by the local councils, so there is no gouging or "surge pricing". You can calculate how much your fare is going to be before you even get into the taxi.

Yes, except at times when non-official taxis would be charging higher prices to encourage more people to offer rides, you can't get an official taxi at all, because people making trivial trips are still using them because they're cheap, while those making essential trips have to wait.

Rationing is clearly better than letting prices rise for a while. Or something.

Re:Extradition?

[dunkelfalke]

Taxi driving is, in fact, different from personal driving. Taxi drivers drive much more than personal drivers, so the probability of an accident is higher. And since they are drivers for hire, they are responsible for the passengers. Hence the different license.

So, what exactly does the government gain? The processing fees for issuing the commercial driver license? They aren't that high, the fees usually just cover the costs of the pencil pushers.

Re:Extradition?

[gworona]

the greater good requirements

...usually result in the greater bad unintended consequences. Why should I have to pay (in higher fair prices) for your decision to live in the boon docks (especially if there are advantages to living there that I don't get to share with you)?

Re:Extradition?

[Endlisnis]

You are half right here. Driving a taxi is mostly the same as driving a normal car. I think that a surprisingly large percentage of regular drivers are terrible drivers; they should have their licences revoked. But any politician that changed the laws such that the bottom 20% of drivers lost their licence would at least be quickly voted out of office, and possibly assassinated for causing our economy to collapse [think of all the people that couldn't drive to work anymore]. We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.

Re:Extradition?

[robbyb20]

Dont forget taxi drivers do this as well. This is not Ubers fault, but im glad its easier to track them down since you have all of their information in electronic form. You know why? Because who remembers the taxi number of the cab you just got out of, especially if youre drunk.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.gatestoneinstitute....

https://www.google.com/maps/d/...

http://www.thatslife.com.au/Ar...

Re:Extradition?

[OhPlz]

Pizza delivery people drive more than personal drivers. Do they need a commercial license?

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.

But we don't actually hold taxi drivers to a notably higher standard, we just extract some money from them and maybe require them to prove that they have some extra insurance at some point.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Has Uber been involved in a traffic accident resulting in injury of death?

Yes. And a lawsuit is pending. He was dicking around with the Uber app looking for a passenger but wasn't carrying a passenger at the time so Uber claimed he wasn't working for them at the time.

"When the application is on and looking for a ride, they are doing so on their own time."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...

He was also charged with manslaughter.

http://time.com/3625556/uber-m...

>can Australians sue a billion dollar US corporation for damages?

I don't see why not.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most insurance policies have a line item that specifically invalidates them if driving for commercial purposes (which includes the scenario above).

Re:Extradition?

[smooth wombat]

That's why drivers should have insurance so we don't have to sue them.

Except if you're running a business, which is what Uber is, on your personal insurance. Then your insurance company won't cover you, and may drop you, which means you end up getting sued anyway.

Re:Extradition?

[radarskiy]

Do pizzas come topped with passengers now?

Re:Extradition?

[radarskiy]

"The line is not clear because it's not clear what the public gains from taxi licenses."

It is implausible for the public to individually vet all drivers in all places they might go to judge whether the driver satisfies their levels of responsibility. One of the criteria for a free market is information symmetry. Without the government licensing acting a proxy for establishing a minimum level of care the worst case outcome of a taxi selection are too high for a reasonably free market to form.

Re:Extradition?

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

Wrong. Taxi licenses are $500 000 or so in Aus and are rationed. Uber wants that to change and so do I.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

But we don't actually hold taxi drivers to a notably higher standard

Except you just mentioned two notably higher standards they have to follow.

You kinda, like you know, NOTED those things out.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

The line is less clear than it should be.

The line is crystal clear. The moment you advertise your services to the public at large, your service becomes a public accommodation. You are no longer operating under the 1st Amendment freedom of association umbrella, and are subject to regulation as society deems necessary.

Re:Extradition?

[Endlisnis]

Extra insurance *is* a higher standard. Now, maybe it's not meaningfully higher, but it's not the only difference. In my city, all licenced taxis must have a specific meter which charges at a predictable rate. You can find out ahead of time (from a web-site) what your ride is going to cost. Now, I get what you are saying. We probably don't require that they are better drivers. That seems like an oversight.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try a Hawaiian.

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

Now, I get what you are saying. We probably don't require that they are better drivers. That seems like an oversight.

We also don't subject them to any kind of meaningful monitoring. All we do is make sure that they have some paperwork that says they have some insurance, and that they have paid us a fee, and sometimes but not usually they get a background check.

In any nation with a national health service, there's no need for additional insurance, the goal of which is to make sure that people's health bills are covered. But since everyone benefits when someone pays someone for transport, isn't that health care something which should be covered by the state?

I don't really think we should make sure that taxi drivers are better drivers. I think we shouldn't let anyone drive unless they're good enough to drive other people around.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some states in the US at least, they do not need a commercial license, but they do need commercial insurance..

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

It is implausible for the public to individually vet all drivers in all places they might go to judge whether the driver satisfies their levels of responsibility.

But all that's typically required for a taxi license is some additional insurance, which is (in theory) provided by Uber anyway. There might be a background check, which might or might not actually be performed. The money may just be pocketed. In most countries there's no additional inspections, et cetera, but even when there are that's nonsense because a taxi should not be doing anything that an ordinary passenger car doesn't do, and therefore it should require no more inspection.

If there's a standardized meter and whatnot, then sure, it makes sense for there to be some fees associated with that.

Without the government licensing acting a proxy for establishing a minimum level of care the worst case outcome of a taxi selection are too high for a reasonably free market to form.

But all the things taxi licenses are supposed to prevent are happening right now, and preventing Uber is certainly preventing a market influence, how is that a free market?

Re:Extradition?

[david_thornley]

Not all Uber operations violate the law. They run some perfectly legitimate services.

Re:Extradition?

[Coren22]

According to another poster higher up, the taxi licensing is around $500k, yeah that sure covers the pencil pushers...

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Re:Extradition?

[Harlequin80]

Seriously???

For the same reason that roads are built that go places you don't go. That we have a health system you pay for even if you don't use it. For the same reason you pay for an army which you don't get to decide what it does.

It is what is called a society and a community.

And who says the taxi won't service the boon docks. It is most profitable for a taxi to do mid length trips with a high chance of a return fare. You live too close, taxi says no. You live too far, taxi says no. You end up stranded with no way to get home because other public transport finished at midnight. To say this could be dangerous is a mild understatement.

If you can't see a problem with this I pity you.

Re:Extradition?

[Harlequin80]

Have you ever asked yourself why they are rationed? The government doesn't get that 500k each year for every license. They get an amount once at the start. So it's not an ongoing supply of money.

So why ration them in the first place? I'll give you a hint to help you along, it wasn't the taxi companies lobbying for it.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the shallow analysis of the long term effects.

Disabled who are guaranteed a ride by the cab companies in a properly equipped vehicle because of legal and regulatory requirements are worried about Uber.

People in less desirable parts of town are worried about Uber.

The fact that a few racist reviews of a rider can make it hard to get a picked up worries minority communities (I'm betting this is a problem you don't have).

I suppose we can assume that Uber is an ethical company (seeing how often they run afoul of the law maybe we can't) and they will get their shit together as far as quality background checks (they haven't) and make sure that people are properly insured to act as commercial drivers (they haven't) so that in the long term you are right that these issues won't matter.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizza delivery people drive more than personal drivers. Do they need a commercial license?

They should. They're the most reckless of all drivers.

Re:Extradition?

[PhilHibbs]

Oh, I didn't know that. Ok, "substantially" then. If I wrote an app that let people buy aspirin, paracetamol, echinacea, and crack cocaine, I bet it would get pulled.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So why ration them in the first place?"

Because you can't set fixed and/or capped fares _and_ allow unlimited numbers of taxis without problems.

The rationing is there to allow a reasonable rate of return despite the fare restrictions. Uber's surge pricing combined with no or very low startup costs is unfair competition to the existing taxi services that face high setup fees and fixed fare structure.

Re:Extradition?

[ceoyoyo]

I imagine the laws governing cars are much like those for boats, but less enforced for individuals. If you're the skipper of a boat you can share costs with guests/crew/passengers but those costs cannot be more than the consumables used on the trip and they cannot pay you for your time. As soon as you accept payment for your services you need commercial permits, your boat has to meet more stringent standards, etc.

Re:Extradition?

[ceoyoyo]

If you're in any kind of commercial transport and you're seriously injured by fault of the driver, owner, maintenance, etc., covering your health care is likely to be the least of what the insurance does. Particularly in the US.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, you actually have to pass a medical at regular intervals, have a police screening done and have at least some experience driving. You also have to pass additional training. At least in Australia anyway.

Re:Extradition?

[drinkypoo]

no, you actually have to pass a medical at regular intervals, have a police screening done and have at least some experience driving. You also have to pass additional training. At least in Australia anyway.

OK, are the police actually going to the screening correctly? What's the penalty to them if they slip up? Nothing? Right. A medical? That is the least relevant possible criteria, but okay. Additional training? That's good. Most places don't have that. And how serious is that training?

Re:Extradition?

[aaronb1138]

Commercial insurance, yes. Lincensure, perhaps. And their employers should be covering the cost. Pizza places should be providing vehicles for the amount of wear and tear all those short trips cause to a car. It's scam employment at it's finest. Pay someone under minimum wage on the basis of tips, then dump the costs of doing business (gas, car maintenance, insurance) on them as if they were a contractor (also not particularly legal).

Parents who let their high school kids get a job delivering pizza instead of flipping burgers or digging ditches are incredibly ignorant and part of the problem.

And then Uber gets kicked in the butt

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no sympathy for Uber openly ignoring laws.
All the government needs to do is find an obscure law which makes the uber app illegal, it will be blacklisted on the Australian app stores, and there goes a stack of Uber business in Australia.

poor summary

[bloodhawk]

"If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines". ahhh NO. the fines are usually around $1700 a hit. The cost of a phone/sim and card are practically nothing, though it will be inconvenient for them.
 
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate, which many other services do instead here they rant about the laws being their to prevent competition which might be the case elsewhere but doesn't appear to be the case in Australia.

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

They could also wait a week to issue the fines and do them in batches to not get detected as frequently. This could lead to some people getting many fines in one huge expensive hit. Uber need to go and study how arms races work before they escalate things next time.

Re:poor summary

[jaa101]

They could also wait a week to issue the fines

I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.

Re:poor summary

[bloodhawk]

They could also wait a week to issue the fines

I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.

Could be treated just like speeding and red light camera tickets. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the car. The owner is then responsible for either paying the ticket or providing details of the person driving at the time, if they can't or won't provide the details then they wear the fine just like normal traffic fines.

Re:poor summary

[jaa101]

Could be treated just like speeding and red light camera tickets. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the car.

Apparently not under the existing laws. If they go to the trouble of changing the law I think they'll go a different way, like nasty penalties for repeat offences and, more likely, finding a way to hit Uber directly with some conspiracy to offend law with huge penalties for corporations.

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The only law Uber actually breaks is the minimum charge for a small charter vehicle of $60.

So if uber cost $60 a ride, then they would be untouchable. The state govt rort on taxi licenses (hundreds of thousands of dollars to be able to operate a marginally profitable business) is ridiculous. Especially once you consider the number of unlicensed and unsafe taxis that are caught every year. What is this system protecting us from? rapes - nope, taxi drivers do that too, unlicensed drivers - nope, unsafe cars - nope, garauntee they can identify the driver of a taxi that you are in - nope. So we pay more, have shit availability and no passenger protections for what?

Re:poor summary

[mjwx]

Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate, which many other services do instead here they rant about the laws being their to prevent competition which might be the case elsewhere but doesn't appear to be the case in Australia.

However if Uber comply with the laws and regulations here in Australia, they wont be cheaper than an established taxi service... In fact they'll probably be a lot more expensive. In my city, Perth, Western Australia, an Uber taxi is only marginally cheaper than the established taxi companies, Swan Taxi's and Black and White Cabs. When surge pricing comes into effect, it's cheaper to get an insured and licensed taxi (because it's illegal to use surge pricing as a licensed taxi in WA). Right now the only thing Uber has going for it is an irrational hate of traditional taxi services... That will turn on them when people realise Uber has the same problems as traditional taxi services.

"If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines". ahhh NO. the fines are usually around $1700 a hit. The cost of a phone/sim and card are practically nothing, though it will be inconvenient for them.

The problem isn't catching them. The problem is the punishment.

The punishment consists of a $1700 fine and that's it. Worse than that, Uber is using its deep pockets to just pay for it. If the government is serious about this they need to get serious about the punishment, first they need to start suspending the licenses of Uber drivers as they're effectively driving without a valid license. Secondly they need to start fining Uber directly for much larger sums of money. My quandary is, whether this will happen before an Uber car inevitably causes a serious accident and insurers take Uber through the cleaners.

Re: poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Uber has one other thing going for them: the hardcore libertarian idealist crowd who believes in breaking any laws that they think get in their way because we all know that all laws are all bad all the time. Those parhetic examples of humanity are among the biggest cheerleaders.

Fortunately, as Dwight Eisenhower said about a similar group, "their numbers are small, and they are stupid".

Re:poor summary

[stephanruby]

Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license.

What are those?

The fact that you're mentioning "commercial insurance" only proves to me that you don't think Uber has any, or that Uber hasn't even tried to comply with the required insurance in Australia.

The fact that you've spelled "license" the American way, instead of the Australian way, and the fact that I couldn't find the Australian "commercial licen[c/s]e"as you called it makes me think that Australians use a different label/designation for commercial licences than Americans usually do.

Please cite your sources. I'm not disputing what you're saying. I just want to get my news from a slightly more reliable source than what some American guy on Slashdot thinks about the subject.

Re:poor summary

[bloodhawk]

In Australia a driver of ANY public transport needs to go to the local motor registry office. They have to have a police check done, they must pass medical requirements, they must also have a certain amount of driving experience (these rules differ slightly between states but are generally very similar), once you pass the basic requirements you can get your standard license upgraded to a commercial vehicle/public transport license. You also have two types of insurance. private car insurance and commercial car insurance. these are not requirements on Uber, they are requirements for driver/owner of the car. if you are operating your car in a commercial capacity then your private insurance is deemed invalid during that time as you are only covered for use as a private transport. here is the ACT commercial/hire car license application
http://www.rego.act.gov.au/__d...

Re:poor summary

[bloodhawk]

and before you reply whinging about no reference to the insurance stuff. I use AAMI for my car insurance, however this particular line or something similar you will find in all private car insurance PDS in Australia under "What we do not cover" "Hire, fare, reward or courtesy car. your car being used for hire, fare or monetary reward" http://www.aami.com.au/sites/d...

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

using Wikipedia as your source for anything isn't exactly a smart move. Go to any of the local motor registry sites. There are completely separate classes of licenses in Australia for commercial transport vehicles in most states. You only look like an idiot when you use Wikipedia as your source. the information isn't hidden and would have taken you all of 30 seconds if you had bothered to look at any reliable information sources. e.g
  NSW. http://www.transport.nsw.gov.a...
  ACT http://www.transport.nsw.gov.a...
  QLD http://tmr.qld.gov.au/Licensin...

Re:poor summary

[bickerdyke]

Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate

And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws. Which would be simpler and more in line with markets and fair competition. Calling for a ban and not even discussing if Uber drivers are licensced/insured according to the laws sounds like a FUD spin to me. Heck they make it even sound as if Uber would FORBID you to get proper insurance.

Re:poor summary

[Harlequin80]

Fundamentally it is not possible for an Uber driver to be properly licensed unless they bought a taxi plate. If they held one of those, then they would also have the taxi insurance and drivers license.

Re:poor summary

[Hognoxious]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=australia...

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

"The punishment consists of a $1700 fine and that's it."

That's not entirely true. The inspectors (not police) generally only give out on-the-spot fines for driving license violations.
Piss the government off, and they'll task the police who can charge you for driving contrary to license conditions and driving an unregistered vehicle (The registration is either personal use only or commercial, uberX drivers are generally the former).

This can result in large fines, criminal record, jail, driving suspension and/or an impounded car. The enforcement has actually been handled with a light touch so far.

Re:poor summary

[bickerdyke]

yes, if it was a taxi, then it would be a taxi....

Re:poor summary

[gnasher719]

And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws.

Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.

Re:poor summary

[bickerdyke]

Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.

Thank you for one more example of exactly this flawed reasoning: "Uber can't be sticking to the law because "that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit" Bit of tautologic, don't you think?

And may I present you every effing taxi as evidence A that it is possible to get even the most ridiciouus licence asked for anywehere in the world and still not operating at a loss? Should be clear that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a business concept of "charging amount X in exchange for the service of transporting people from A to B".

Go for the drivers who are violating local requirements for commercial transport because THAT is the only offense here. Go for anyone who forces drivers to violate laws, but you should have some evidence that Uber is doing this.

Re:poor summary

[stephanruby]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=australia...

Thank you very much for proving that I actually did my research, as the first result in your search results is the exact same link I already provided in the post you're replied to.

Re:poor summary

[stephanruby]

Ok, I stand corrected on the hire-for licence, but I've got to disagree with the following.

these are not requirements on Uber, they are requirements for driver/owner of the car.

I never said that Uber was required to have that insurance, I'm just saying that Uber covers the drivers/owners of the car with its own commercial coverage while they are driving and logged into the application on their phone.

Re:poor summary

[bloodhawk]

Part of the signup for Uber is that you have to have your own insurance. Even if Uber covers them It also becomes interesting how insurance will pay out in circumstances where the drivers are clearly in breach of driving laws, most insurances are not honored in such circumstances, maybe Uber somehow got their insurance to excuse unlicensed drivers. e.g. my AAMI policy states you are not covered if you are driving in breach of your license conditions.

Re:poor summary

[codeButcher]

They could also wait a week to issue the fines

I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.

So don't you ask to see the Uber driver's license each time you catch a ride with one? Just asking. Not needed a taxi/uber ride in recent years, but it would seem sensible to identify the stranger you will be traveling with.

Re:poor summary

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

Wrong. The license fee is $500 000 odd. If they got rid of this and then said "but you must get a special drivers license and pass a police check" this would be appropriate. The point is that the laws need to change and Uber is trying to force that change. Which I agree with.

Re:poor summary

[jfengel]

I thought the idea of Uber wasn't to be cheaper, but more convenient. They have more drivers out working than the taxis, since it's a part-time job rather than a full-time job, and can attract drivers at surge times with higher fees.

According to http://www.businessinsider.com..., a taxi is actually cheaper than Uber in New York, and about even after tipping. But the real win is not having to hail a cab or deal with the unreliable dispatching service. They use GPS more effectively to provide better feedback. They're also a single service, rather than dozens of cab companies.

I suspect that the cabs could provide much better service by incorporating part of Uber's business model. It's a bit disturbing to me that they seem to want to win based primarily on requiring a regulation limiting the number of cars. Not that Uber is playing nicely, at least not from what I read on teh intarwebz, and if so I'd be happy to see them beaten out by somebody who will be less predatory.

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it proved the opposite, you ONLY opened the first link, and as that link was Wikipedia it makes it incredibly poor research, especially given the plethora of other more reliable sources on the results page.

Re:poor summary

[Harlequin80]

Walks like a taxi, quacks like a taxi, acts like a taxi, is paid like a taxi, it's a taxi.

Just cause I want to call it "Ride Sharing" doesn't make it not a taxi. Uber drivers are going to a location, picking someone up, and driving that person where they want to go. It is not like the Uber driver happened to be driving from Point A to Point B already.

Re:poor summary

[bickerdyke]

Walks like a taxi, quacks like a taxi, acts like a taxi, is paid like a taxi, it's a taxi.

Yes. Nothing wrong with it going through the same burdens as a taxi. But at the same time I hear that it should be banned like taxis are NOT. That's what doesn't make sense.

Re:poor summary

[Harlequin80]

The ban responses come from how they have been operating and are a kneejerk reaction.

If they were a restaurant and they failed health and safety checks and hygiene standards they would be shut down until the complied. I believe many people's call for Uber to be banned come from the belief that Uber is operating outside the law and has no intention of ever complying with those laws.

I believe that Uber should be prohibited from operating until their setup complies. I am not ok with Uber being able to operate outside the law, make profits from that, in the hope that one day they will be compliant.

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

It is against the law to have unlicensed drivers in hire car service, it is against the law to have vehicles not insured for commercial operation. You could argue that it is the drivers breaking the laws but as Uber facilitates the transaction that would almost definitely be on the hook in any accident or prosecution.

Re:poor summary

[Anonymous Coward]

no that is a license fee to operate as a taxi in some states. The licensing of a for hire vehicles is not 500k and comes with a different set of regulations (which Uber also won't adhere to as it affects there pricing). Uber are basically doing there best to ignore the laws and regulations as they know that if they adhere to them there pricing advantage is gone.

Re:poor summary

[Hognoxious]

The trick is to scroll past the thickypedia ones, as I do almost as a reflex.

Or perhaps you thought WA meant Washington, despite the .au on the end?

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

All they need to do is start suspending the driver's licences for those that get multiple infractions and the interest in driving for uber would drop pretty quickly.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

there will always be people willing to take the risk of being caught. if they want to stop it they need to issue two fines. The current $1700 fine the driver gets and perhaps an exponentially larger fine for each infringement to Uber, say $17,000 fine for them. though drivers really should be getting suspensions too as they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance.

illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail tim

[raymorris]

So Uber decided to trade a small fine for operating an unlawful taxi for criminal charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Smart.

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're incredibly naive.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Toss in the corporations and we're on our way to utopia!

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that called anarchy?

It may well be automatic

[growingtedium]

Don't Uber riders get rated by the drivers after the trip? Presumably after a couple of very negative reviews from drivers (who collected $1700 dollar fines), Uber would automatically block these undesirable riders. Seems a more likely explanation than a conspiracy to obstruct a police action. Then again, Uber doesn't have a great moral track record.

Re:It may well be automatic

[JonathanR]

And governments have much worse moral records.

No ID check?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come all you need to sign up for Uber is throw-away phone, a credit card and a gmail account? Wouldn't it be prudent to require some form of ID for the sign-up process? (In order to avoid fraud/robberies.)

Many websites have systems in place where they send you a code via registered mail, and you need a valid ID to receive it.

For those who are in a hurry you could require an endorsement from an existing member in good staning instead.

Re:No ID check?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come all you need to show that you are legally allowed to act as a chauffeur is a valid drivers licence and be over 21?

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just roman_mir. It's not a day on /. without him throwing a tantrum about the bugs in his brain.

The Taxi Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

The Victorian Taxi Lobby has managed to prevent the construction of a railway line to the airport for well over 20 years now. I honestly don't give a flying fuck if they are now being screwed over by Uber (remember its the plate owners - rich white guys, not the drivers - poor black guys). Bollocks to them I say!

With the exception of short trips from a rank, I've taken an Uber just about every time I've needed to use a 'taxi' recently because
a) It's cheaper by about 15% on most journeys,
b) there is no 10% "surcharge" for using a credit card,
c) there is no $1.50 "booking fee" for having the audacity to ring up and speak to a computer to request a ride, and
d) the driver is the owner of the vehicle, is going to be rated by you as a passenger, and therefore has a vested interest in making sure your ride is as direct and comfortable as possible.

And the article has obviously been doing the rounds in the Taxi Forum because all the comments are so pro-Taxi, anti-Uber. But like one of them says "The taxi industry is a dinosaur. Uber is the Comet"

Re:The Taxi Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taxi industry certainly is too powerful and expensive. Uber though go too far in the opposite direction where they are just as corrupt but completely unregulated resulting in unlicensed and completely uninsured trips for users, sadly most people taking trips are ignorant of the fact if they are in an accident with an uber driver they are well and truly fucked. I am sure some of the people here are from the Taxi services, though most simply don't like companies that think the laws are for everyone else to obey but them and use ignoring laws as a way to get a competitive advantage, it is a scumbag way to operate.

Re:The Taxi Lobby

[jonwil]

Its not the taxis that have prevented the rail line to the airport, its the operators of the toll road out to the airport (dont know Melbourne well enough to know exactly which road it is). The contracts signed at the time the toll road was built specified that the government wasn't allowed to compete by building a railway line for x amount of time after the road was built.

Blame Jeff Kennett and the liberals for that mess (they signed the contracts and did the deals to build the Western Link toll road), not the taxi drivers.

Re:The Taxi Lobby

[Jeremy Erwin]

The taxi industry is a dinosaur. Uber is the Comet

Maybe you should read up on this extinction event. I like the part about impact winter, myself.

Re:The Taxi Lobby

[riverat1]

To avoid confusion for the US readers the liberals in Australia are the equivalent of the Republican Party in the US.

Forget about fining drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget about fining drivers, Uber will just pay the fines.

Start impounding cars.

Re:Forget about fining drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we kick down the taxi monopoly instead?

Re:Forget about fining drivers

[gnupun]

How about we kick down the taxi monopoly instead?

What's that got to do with uber? Simply eliminate the medallion system and that will get rid of the so-called taxi monopoly. Be aware, even if the govt doesn't mind, the existing taxi drivers will protest.

Only if you want governments apart from the people

[dbIII]

Once you start to work out that you are part of the problem you can do something to fix it. It's not China, your own actions can have an impact on what sort of government you have.
Your opt-out suggestion is counterproductive and a denial of your responsibility as a citizen. You are part of society. Being sociopathic isn't going to improve society.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[GoddersUK]

they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance

People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

How is this obstruction of justice? All this does is make the inspector's life more difficult; but it does not prevent him/her from actually doing their job; nor prevent them from prosecuting prior infringements (which would be obstruction).

I think Uber should divide their services into two separate contracts; one calling the vehicle; the other providing the ride. Then include a clause in their Ts & Cs that requesting a vehicle for the purposes of issuing a fine or any other regulatory purpose attracts a $100,000 call fee. If the inspector issues the fine prior to a fare-paying ride being witnessed, then there is no evidence with which to charge the driver. However, the call-fee still stands, since that service has been contracted; and contracted separate from the illegal activity; being the fare-paying ride.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would require legislative changes, there are no provisions to suspend licences or increase fines after multiple offenses in the in current law. Right now (in most states), it's a fixed fine per offence. Since the inspector is a regular statuatory body, and what they are being fined for isn't a criminal offense AIUI, I believe they can't currently directly do anything about Uber blocking the accounts to avoid detection.

On the other hand, the taxi industry could do something to stop it, by providing decent services.

Is Uber a big government straw man?

[rsborg]

Because that's how you get legislation.

I have no idea why Uber would be so blatant/stupid - any legal advice or even common sense would have told them that this kind of behavior gets a lot of attention very fast - and not the good, loving kind of attention either.

Unless they are really trying to get governments to make it hard for smaller "ridesharing" companies to compete. Burning the bridge after you cross? Does that make any sense?

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[quantaman]

Because that's how you get legislation.

I have no idea why Uber would be so blatant/stupid - any legal advice or even common sense would have told them that this kind of behavior gets a lot of attention very fast - and not the good, loving kind of attention either.

Unless they are really trying to get governments to make it hard for smaller "ridesharing" companies to compete. Burning the bridge after you cross? Does that make any sense?

Well they are worth $40 billion so they're evidently doing something right.

I think they're willing to ride out the fines, even if the fines are big enough so they're losing money they've got the bank to do it for a while. And in the meantime people are reading about them in the papers, drivers are coming to work for them, and people are installing their app.

If and when Australia updates its laws all those competitors who obeyed the law will step in to find that Uber has a huge first mover advantage. Unless Australia and other districts find a way to actually shut them down this is going to be one of those cases where crime does pay.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well they are worth $40 billion so they're evidently doing something right."

DEpends heavily on the country if they are doing something right. If they only operated here they would be worth $0. Even if we had 7 billion people economy.

Re: Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

The case would be between the government and the driver who is caught, not uber. They will just sit on the evidence a bit longer so they can sting more drivers.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think people like to root for an underdog especially when they can put up a good fight.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[dunkelfalke]

Nortel used to be worth 400 billions. Two years later only 5 billions. It still was the same company, just not as overvalued anymore. Market capitalisation doesn't show how much an enterprise is actually worth or whether it does something right or not. It only shows what the speculators currently think.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Richard_at_work]

The year before it imploded in dramatic fashion, Enron was worth, according to its Market Capitalisation, $60Billion - when infact it was worth nothing like that.

Uber's "worth" of $40Billion comes from investor interest, nothing more. There's no huge bank of assets in there that underpins that valuation, its how much money it could potentially earn in the markets it exists in.

Re: Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Billions

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[davester666]

not even that. it's the idea that if the last person buying any shares of a company for does it for $X/share, then ALL shares of the company can be sold for that much.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[gbjbaanb]

Once upon a time in the stock market on America there was a bit of a tech bubble, everybody wanted tech stocks like Yahoo and other powerhouses of future technological change.

At this time a new company emerged amongst all these internet giants, it was called NetJ.com and whilst it had the magic of "Net" "J" and ".com" in its name, it had little else. In fact, its filing to the stock market said:

"The company is not currently engaged in any substantial business activity and has no plans to engage in any such activity in the foreseeable future."

The sharemarket rewarded NetJ.com with a $100 million valuation.

I guess inflation and QE means $100m is now equal to $40bn in stock-market terms.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they are worth $40 billion

So are drug cartels, theyre also doing something right i guess...

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[TapeCutter]

I think they're willing to ride out the fines, even if the fines are big enough so they're losing money they've got the bank to do it for a while.

They didn't get $40B by paying fines issued to the driver, if the driver could afford the fines he wouldn't be working for uber in the first place.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[benjfowler]

And as we saw with Enron, and as we're seeing with Uber -- the fish rots from the head.

The guys running Uber must be the biggest douches walking the face of the Earth...

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[johanw]

They do: they deliver what the people want, just like tobacco firms or the breweries. That governments don't like it is increasingly less important in this time period.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they are worth $40 billion so they're evidently doing something right.

People have used the exact same reasoning when they handed their life savings over to Bernie Madoff.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Aside from the bad PR, unless the 'transport inspector' people are not even close to some flavor of cop, and have markedly weaker powers, "deliberately fucking with the agents investigating your lawbreaking" is often more of a crime than whatever you were doing in the first place.

Also(again, unless 'transport inspector' is a much, much, weaker category of enforcement, and doesn't even have any friends in agencies with actual power) a little friendly technical assistance from at least one bank and phone company(two areas of business that are generally happy to assist the government, unless it involves having to compete or pay taxes) could provide as many CC numbers, IMEIs, and IMSIs as one could reasonably need.

Sure, if you actually have to buy a burner at the sleazy cell kiosk, like some kind of drug dealer, every time, that adds up; but it's not as though the numbers themselves are expensive for some reason, if you can get them in bulk right from the vendor.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were counting on people rooting for the underdog then they really shouldn't have decided to call themselves "Uber".

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[SuperDre]

Well, but if the terms and conditions aren't according to the law then those are not valid. Also in a number of countries investigators have priviliges so they don't have to obey some laws if that inhibits their investigation (just like a cop can run through a red light if they have their sirene on)..

Re: Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

beeeeeeeelllions

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Richard_at_work]

You can't trump government inspections with Terms and Conditions.

I really do wonder what fucking world a bunch of people here live in - "hey, why not just make up our own terms and conditions and circumvent all requirements to follow any laws?! Hah local government, take that!" Really? Are you high all the time or something?

Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements for inspection officers or legal bodies to carry out inspections under those laws, or affect the ability for those inspection officers or legal bodies to carry out said inspections. No matter how much you want to argue it.

"Government officers are not allowed access to this system" is a fantasy land bullshit thing which was laughed out of court in the 1980s when BBSes attempted to use it to stop police from gathering information on illegal activities. Your assertion is no different.

Oh, and Chelsea Manning was tried under espionage and treason laws - were you trying to equate government inspections with the activities of Aaron Swartz perhaps? Because the two are not equatable, regardless of how overboard you think the prosecutor went in the Swartz case.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're willing to ride out the fines

I see what you did there... even if you didn't. :-)

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Ronin Developer]

But, if the business is subject to regulation and you fail to let the regulators in....well, be prepared for heavy fines and possible jail sentences.

As a company, their valuation is based entirely on speculation as they have little capital assets. Hindering those that hold legislative and regulatory powers over you is liable to result in your valuation disappearing overnight.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[tehcyder]

Well they are worth $40 billion

No, they're not. A bunch of billionaires are funding them handsomely, presumably on the basis that if enough laws get broken, everyone will just give up with the rule of law, and revert to a pure laissez faire system. At which point the billionaires will be happy.

There is no other logical explanation for investing so much in a fucking taxi company.

PS what is up with the slashdot layout? There are huge slabs of unlovely grey everywhere, it looks like Day One of a "build yourself a website in 7 days" course.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

"not allowing regulators in"

is very different to

"not allowing regulators to use the service"

This is no different than not allowing movie or music streaming for public performance - the terms and conditions prohibit it, and you break the law if you break the terms and conditions.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[tehcyder]

Don't be so silly.

Just because I write in my terms and conditions "any attempt at unauthorised access to my computer systems means I can murder you" does not grant me immunity from the laws against murdering people.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then if such a user gains entry, they are subject to the same laws which apply to anyone gaining unauthorised access to said computer systems

Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements
Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements
Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements
And just for good measure...
Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements

If I sign a contract, and somewhere buried in there it says I must throw a virgin into a volcano at least once per year, and I don't do that, there is jack-all that company can sue me over, because murder being illegal trumps that contract. Likewise, if the law says that inspectors may access your computers, but your ToS stipulates that they cannot, too fucking bad, law trumps your ToS.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to like it. I certainly don't. But "I reject your reality and substitute my own" doesn't really work here.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

who said anything about the sueing?

This is JUST about WHO can use their network.
If you gain unauthorised access to a computer network you are breaking the law
If you do not abide by the terms and conditions of accessing a computer network you are breaking the law

WHATEVER those terms and conditions are.

Even if those terms stipulate committing an illegal act to gain authorised access.
If you don't abide by the terms - once more for good luck
it's unauthorised access
Which is illegal.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

There is nothing illegal about not giving certain users access to a computer system.

There is no law which says you have to provide access.

By default NOONE is allowed access to ANY computer system.
The terms and conditions define WHO is allowed access.

If someone breaks those terms and conditions a company is well within their rights to take steps to ensure their access is revoked.

revoking a user account and preventing the credentials from being used to create a new user account is in no way shape or form an illegal act.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

Here's the relevent term:
36.3 A customer must not use our services, attempt to use a service, or allow a service to be used in any way that:
(a) Breach of law:
(i)results in the customer or us breaching, or being involved in a breach of law, order, code, instrument or regulation;

So by using the service to enact a breach of the law, they regulator breached the terms of service, which meant they used the service illegally.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

As for manning vs Swartz.

It was a more general reference to "doing illegal things on computer systems".

and the final punishment.
Personally I don't think the regulators need murdering in custody like they did with Swartz, but then again....

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[tlhIngan]

Well, that doesn't apply to just inspectors. An inspector just gathers evidence of law breaking. That section doesn't protect you if you're breaking the law in the first place.

The inspector isn't doing anything out of the ordinary - he's calling a Uber vehicle like all the other Uber customers out there. To cry entrapment, that would mean encouraging someone who wasn't an Uber driver to become one to be caught. But these drivers already are in breach of law, so no, you're not encouraging them to break the law they're already breaking.

Additionally, that clause really only means "you can't ask an uber driver to break laws". Like you can't tell them to go down a one-way street the wrong way.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Zenzilla]

Unless the law says you can have access. Then it doesn't matter what the TOS say.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

->That section doesn't protect you if you're breaking the law in the first place.

what do you mean by protect?

The regulators have no protection from breaching the terms of service by being involved in a breach of the law and having their user accounts revoked.

I don't see how it's any more complicated than that. I don't see any reason regulators should get any special privileges to break the terms of service and then get to keep their accounts.

Or do you want the aus government to force them to change their terms of service so they condone breaking the law?

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

who said anything about the sueing?

It was simply meant as an example of an action a company might take when a user accesses their computers in a manner contrary to their ToS.

If you do not abide by the terms and conditions of accessing a computer network you are breaking the law

And this is where you are wrong, wrong, oh so very wrong. Because as everyone else has been telling you, if your ToS says that a certain group of people are disallowed access, but the law says that same group of people are allowed access, guess what, their access is totally legal, your ToS be damned.

Again, I am NOT saying that it is right (though to be fair, nor am I saying it is wrong). I am only saying that that is the way it is. I don't like this reality, but for now, I am stuck in it and must abide by the things that are, even if I dislike them. I can try to change them, sure, but until such time as I am able to change them, I must accept them as true.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

->but the law says that same group of people are allowed access

Nowhere, anywhere, does the law say these regulators must be granted an Uber user account.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[david_thornley]

I suspect nothing says that Uber can interfere with the operation of police investigators or regulators.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

Police - maybe. depends on the circumstances they have to give access (court order would be a minimum I'd guess). But since we aren't talking about police I'm not sure why you think that matters
Regulators, not a chance. Regulators have no more powers in law than you or I.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[sumdumass]

Actually, copyright laws do say something about public performances. That is a lot different than what you are attempting to claim.

But if history has showed us anything, it is that governments and government entities are above the law. It doesn't really matter what term and conditions you set. The only people who can prosecute is the government. Thats like expecting you to citizens arrest yourself for that one time you blew through a stop sign. Aint gonna happen.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[mSparks43]

sounds like you misunderstand the point. or didn't rtfa.
Regulators are breaking the ToCs and having their accounts cancelled.
no suing or prosecuting necessary.
just a click of the mouse to disable the account which prevents the regulators from using it for entrapment. and adds the phone, credit card, email etc to a blacklist which are not allowed to be used for a new account.

The ToCs matter, because if it wasn't a breach of the ToCs, the regulators would have recourse through the courts to have their accounts reactivated.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if they are cancelling the accounts as a result of that term, then it's an admission they (uber) are operating illegally, and hence deserve a smack on their bot-bot.

Re:Is Uber a big government straw man?

[sumdumass]

Sigh.. i read the article and understand it perfectly well. It is you who seems to be willfuly ignoring things in order to push a point of view.

All they will do is gather evidence and issue thousands of fines at once instead of as they find them. If they arent careful, they will classify Uber as a criminal organization and start siezing funds, arresting drivers for felonies, and even if uber can beat it in court, the government is above the law do lite to nothing will stol it

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[jaa101]

The problem, noted in TFA, is that the existing legislation doesn't have provisions for higher penalties for repeat offenders. Currently it seems they can't do anything more than fine them $1700 per infringement. Uber is paying the drivers' fines for them.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[preaction]

You expect the government to uphold a civil contract that charges the government $100,000 in order for the government to do its job enforcing the laws the government passed?

Wow.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds pretty oppressive to me, as well as abuse of the licensing system that was only meant to keep unskilled drivers from driving.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[turkeyfish]

Scores of women have now be raped by Uber drivers, who don't need to show any credentials, but just pretend to be someone providing a ride.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[turkeyfish]

Solution is pretty simple. Just impound the vehicles. It won't be long before there will be no willing drivers, many of them probably rapists looking for another opportunity.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia REQUIRES hire car and taxi drivers to be operating under commercial licenses and insurance (this is not optional), private insurance for drivers is considered invalid if you are operating as a for hire service here and hence you are uninsured. It isn't specifically uber that is unlicensed and uninsured it is the drivers. Your normal drivers license and insurance is not valid for operating such a service in Australia.

Re:Only if you want governments apart from the peo

[iluvcapra]

It's not China, your own actions can have an impact on what sort of government you have.

This rule is not suspended for the sake of China...

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber Australia requires a K class (taxi/charter vehicle) license to be a driver, so they are covered for that situation.

Re:Only if you want governments apart from the peo

[ihtoit]

the term "sociopath" hasn't been in legitimate use since 1968 (DSM-II following the collapse of the Mary Bell defence). Please select another, more appropriate term.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[GoddersUK]

Repeating yourself doesn't make your right. Assuming Uber works the same way in Aus that it does in London all their drivers and vehicles are required to be licensed by the local authorities. Typically this will include more stringent driving checks, criminal records checks, road-worthiness checks, proof of the appropriate professional insurance and so on. See here (sorry, stupid website - can't permalink). Now maybe Uber works differently in Australia, but I don't see why they would. Come back with some evidence, and I'll listen.

Cue the Uberrage

[flopsquad]

"I'm extremely angry that this monopoly-breaking company (the one that finally introduced innovation and competition into an industry stagnant for decades) isn't letting government officials use its own platform to bust it!"

I mean, countries/states/cities are free to enact bans and harsh penalties to prop up existing cartels. See also U.S. states banning Tesla direct sales to consumers, because, hey, entrenched dealership interests. And as a philosophical matter I encourage Uber to respect the rule of law (all over the world) and push for democratic change rather than just rolling down Main Street with a foam middle finger out the sunroof.

But I don't have to applaud legislative support for inefficient, customer-deaf monopolies, nor large-scale sting operations that look quite like a money making game. And Uber certainly doesn't have to welcome fake users into its app just so it can get fined. Cat, meet mouse.


P.S. - Maybe taxis in Australia are infinitely better than they are here in the U.S., in which case I'm infinitely sorry I painted them with the same brush. Good on ya, much-loved not-monopoly taxis!!

Re:Cue the Uberrage

[Anonymous Coward]

>Maybe taxis in Australia are infinitely better than they are here in the U.S

No, you pretty much got it.

Re:Cue the Uberrage

[Anonymous Coward]

In recent times I've found Australian taxis pretty good. Several years ago they were pretty shocking, but after using taxis four times a month for most of last year I've found them a lot better.

Re:Cue the Uberrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber has behaved in unethical and illegal behavior since day one, and have demonstrated repeatedly why taxi regulations exist in the first place. Their goal is to replace a monopoly that has been regulated by the demand of the people for decades with one that is run by them and unregulated by anyone.

Re:Cue the Uberrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, shill, but no good - you've given yourself away too easily:

"monopoly-breaking company" Monopoly- breaking company? Bwahahahahahaa! Uber wants to BE a monopoly! See how laughable your made-up quote is? (You're not actually quoting anything anyone really said, but you put quotation marks around it. Why?)

"And Uber certainly doesn't have to welcome fake users into its app just so it can get fined." Excuse me? Fake users? Don't you mean people employed by the government of Australia to look after the safety of their citizens? See, this is what annoys people so much about uber and people like you who support them. You have absolutely no respect for reasonable laws designed to protect citizens.

I'm sick of all this Uber shill/fanboi nonsense. The Uber PR machine paid for by the ton of Google money they've got is offensive.

By the way, nice high Slashdot user number you've got there. New here, are you?

Is Uber a big government straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you intend to subsequently build a bridge better suited to you.

Uber's being aggressive in an attempt to tip the scales in their favour when it comes to the negotiation phase. I'm not saying it's smart, but I'm sure there's some legal jargon about signing up for an account that'll keep the case tied up for a while... unless both sides agree on some groundrules.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

"How is this obstruction of justice? All this does is make the inspector's life more difficult;"

I can't fathom the thought process that went into that. Of course it is obstruction "to interrupt, hinder, or oppose".

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

from what I have heard (second hand), Uber doesn't actually check. hence many people are driving for Uber without that license and without commercial insurance. I have been told (again second hand info) that all uber requires is that you tick a box to say you are complying with the laws rather than actually checking. The fines also seem to confirm this as the ones publicized state they are issued for operating a commercial hire vehicle without a commercial hire vehicle license, perhaps the fines the uber drivers have been showing to the press are fake?

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[jaa101]

The contract wouldn't be between Uber and the government. The contract would be between Uber and the private individual who also happens to be a transport inspector, not even a police officer. Remember, it's a sting operation so they're not going to register as a government department. It's not so clear to me that this would fail in a civil case. Are there laws voiding contract terms that impede government officials in their duties? Lawyers anywhere?

I think $2000 would be a better number for Uber to try since it would be much more likely to be under the limit of a government-issued credit card but still more than the fine. They could be more subtle by making the passenger responsible for any financial consequences of their actions during the ride. That looks more innocuous but, with the right legal phraseology, could still cover transport inspectors' fines. But, as correctly noted, this is the way to get new legislation.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[mjwx]

Solution is pretty simple. Just impound the vehicles. It won't be long before there will be no willing drivers, many of them probably rapists looking for another opportunity.

Under Australian law, those without a taxi license are effectively driving without a valid license. The penalty for this is the suspension or cancellation of the drivers licenses. Repeat offenders can face jail time.

Impounding cars are reserved for "hoon" offences (something I dont particularly agree with but its there anyway).

A few suspended licenses and Uber will find itself short of drivers very quickly.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, the UK is a place where such mid-tier licensing is possible. In countries where there is no existing license category, Uber appears to skirt the law.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Uber app gives the license plate of the driver's car.

Accidentally getting in the wrong car with a rapist is a problem that existed prior to Uber.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia:
Uber black requires you to be "A professional chauffeur with a commercial license and commercial auto insurance."
uberX requires you to be "At least 21 years old, with an Australian drivers license and comprehensive insurance."

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[stephanruby]

Or it could just be an automatic response of the system. If a person files for a refund enough times, that person may automatically be banned by the system. After all, this is how other systems handle similar issues.

Re:Only if you want governments apart from the peo

[Anonymous Coward]

ENTJ

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

only the taxi equivalent Uber X requires drivers to have the commercial licenses. The ride sharing drivers have no such requirement here in Aus as such he is right. In Aus ALL drivers must have the commercial license and insurance when operating hire vehicles, this includes the ride sharing for money ones.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think Uber should divide their services into two separate contracts; one calling the vehicle; the other providing the ride. Then include a clause in their Ts & Cs that requesting a vehicle for the purposes of issuing a fine or any other regulatory purpose attracts a $100,000 call fee."

Ahhahahaha. Really? Try this out. Wear a sign that attracts a $1 billion fine if the police want to stop you for anything. You can't contract law around other laws like that.

Also, you realle think it's hard for the government to cycle through IMEIS and / or sims? Please. Uber should just admit they are operating outside of the law, and either work to change the law, or follow it. Australia is being very lenient here, only fining them.

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

So uber is not some hip new thing like they keep claiming? Sounds like a regular old taxi company, that is global and has no morals when it can get away with it.

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nothing to so with unskilled drivers, it has to with proper insurance and licensing in the countries they want to work in. When your job is driving 8+ a day and trying to get customers to their destination quickly, insurance companies have found you're at higher risk of accidents. So you need better insurance. Likewise the regulations for taxi services already exist in many countries and pretending you're a "ride sharing" company to ignore those rules is assinine.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[bickerdyke]

Somehow I'd still like to call BS on those stories.

There shouldn't be anything easier than catching and putting into jail a rapist driver if you have the (electronic) paper trail of who got into whose car, where was the ride booked, where was the destination. Aren't they automatically checking the GPS logs that the driver ist taking you from A to B on the shortest route? And I'd bet that Uper is checking meticulously that you're not cutting into Ubers share by booking only the first half of your ride by Uber and pay the driver cash for the rest of the trip.

So if you live in a country where rape is not normal and the police actively is trying to catch rapists, Uber should be safer than being anywhere else without GPS tracking. Sounds like cab company FUD to me.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[TsuruchiBrian]

You could have always have been raped, but now you can at least leave a bad review.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Richard_at_work]

Yeah, thats going to get thrown out of court with prejudice, and potentially fines or jail time for contempt.

Its as ridiculous as those notices on piracy bulletin boards thats said "if you are a member of law enforcement you do not have permission to enter".

Oh, fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're breaking the law. They're getting fined. Go have your little libertardian circle-jerk somewhere else; we just cleaned the rugs.

Re:Oh, fuck off.

[flopsquad]

Go have your little libertardian circle-jerk somewhere else; we just cleaned the rugs.

The Invisible Hand does give the best HJs...

Re:Oh, fuck off.

[riverat1]

The Invisible Hand does give the best HJs...

:) I'm going to remember that one.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[TsuruchiBrian]

Maybe, if Australia has "activist judges" like in America :)

Uber/UberX

[wonkey_monkey]

What exactly is the relationship between Uber and UberX, here?

Re:Uber/UberX

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is the company.

UberX is the ridesharing product that everyone hates because it is illegal (because they ignore the rules), but cheap (most of the time).
UberBlack is a professional limousine product that no one seems to care about much because it is legal (they follow the rules), but expensive (following the rules costs money).

Re:Uber/UberX

[jtara]

NOBODY uses Uber. EVERYBODY uses UberX. Do you know anybody who has every actually ordered an Uber black car?

WHEN YOU SEE "UBER" IN THE PRESS, THEY MEAN UBERX!

The original Uber service (which nobody uses) was the camel's nose under the tent flap.

The regular Uber service (nominally) sends you a real licensed private car (in California, they have a "TCP number". There is a considerable annual tax on the vehicle) and a real licensed commercial driver and real commercial insurance (I believe the requirement in California is $2million). It is just dispatching a limo driver and car that aren't otherwise in use.

When Uber first emerged, I just didn't get it. I thought, "how many people can afford to be running around in expensive black cars?" I thought it was only for privileged snotty SF venture-funded jerks. Well, they just tested the system on themselves. That was the bait. UberX was the switch.

On the other hand, I know people in the industry, and it made perfect sense from their standpoint. It might be a good way for them to fill-in some downtime. They might have to discount their services, but a discounted drive is better than none. (So long as you make a decent profit.)

I know a bit more than most about this, because I have a friend who has been both a legal and illegal limo driver. He has a Class C license. He drives for limo companies on a pick-up basis. He bought his own car, but failed to TCP it. He knew a lot of club owners and doormen around town, so was able to get plenty of business without advertising or going through an agency.

But then San Diego did stings with wide publicity in the news - it was a trending thing. I remember texting him about the first news story that I saw and he stopped just like that. He did not want to jeopardize his Class C license, which he still needs for his current job. But with UberX, the drivers have less to lose - or they think they do. In fact, they are jeopardizing their ability to get insurance. Yes, they can be banned from buying car insurance if they are in an accident and it is discovered they were driving for hire. No company will write them insurance after that. In some places, they might be jeopardizing their driver's license. But - as much of a hassle as it might be - it's of much less consequence for somebody who is not a licensed commercial driver. So, they might have to take a bus to their 7-11 day job. Big deal.

My friend drives for a titty-bar now. Brings one of the girls around on a route of military hang-outs, collects em, and they get free admission and he gets nice tips. (Especially if the military guys get some nice t*ts...) A lot better than risking a huge fine. This was all a couple years before Uber, BTW. I have two other friends with commercial licenses as well and I've discussed Uber(X) with them, they all are in agreement on what the law is. It's frickin illegal.

So, now, the difference is, they do the stings, and there is somebody with big pockets standing there to hand money to the drivers as they walk away from the payment window. Wow, just like a blind pig I knew about back in Detroit. They got raided because the management was selling cocaine openly. People stood in line to pay fines, and Sonny would hand them the cash as they walked off the line. Same thing here, it's just an upstart corporation that sees itself beyond the law, not some big black dude named Sonny.

Re:Uber/UberX

[jtara]

Uber is the company.

UberX is the ridesharing product...

UberBlack is a professional limousine product...

Thanks for the clarification!

Did they brand UberBlack as UberBlack when they started out? I think they just started that branding when the started UberX.

Nice summary.

When they started out with UberBlack, there was nothing about it to alert regulators, because it was all legal. They were basically just passing leading to licensed drivers with licensed cars, and facilitating payment.

Then they pulled the switch.

Re:Uber/UberX

[jtara]

They were basically just passing leading to licensed drivers

Leads, not leading, sorry.

Just want to make sure nobody thinks the drivers were fabricating stained glass or setting type in the off-time.

libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slash-fucking-dot the mother-fucking-libertarians only respect the laws they want to follow and refuse to get a god-damn-clue about anything else.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[houghi]

The company paying the fines for the drivers would be illegal in Europe. Because that would encourage driving dangerously.

Also: in Europe fines would increment each time. SO a first time could be 1700EUR, the second time 3400EUR, next 10.000EUR and 6 months suspention. Then even more and no drivers licence for ever. It will go up to jail time if you are really stupid.

So what will change is that there soon will be a providion for higher penalties for repeat offenders.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

Let me help you fathom it.

Uber is under no obligation to accept every potential passenger. They can choose who to do business with and who not to. If they proactively deny their services to a person who happens to be a regulatory inspector - after the customer happens to be discovered as a regulatory bureaucrat - it isn't obstruction of justice, it's merely refusing to do further business with them.

Obstruction of justice is the willful interference in an ongoing investigation or prosecution; not the ongoing career of an investigator. By your logic, pleading the fifth amendment or using encryption is obstruction of justice. _That_ is something unfathomable.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uber Australia requires a K class (taxi/charter vehicle) license to be a driver, so they are covered for that situation."

False.

I had a look at Uber's signup system for Brisbane, QLD

UberX
---------
You Are...
At least 21 years old, with an Australian drivers license and comprehensive insurance.
(ie: illegally driving commercially)

Never asked me about whether I was licensed to carry commercial passengers.

UberBlack:
---------------
You Are...
A professional chauffeur with a commercial license and commercial auto insurance.
(legal)

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[DrXym]

there will always be people willing to take the risk of being caught. if they want to stop it they need to issue two fines. The current $1700 fine the driver gets and perhaps an exponentially larger fine for each infringement to Uber, say $17,000 fine for them. though drivers really should be getting suspensions too as they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance.

Most countries would have the powers against unlicenced taxi operators to fine them, impound their vehicle, ban drivers, even hand out custodial sentences if the offence merited it. I'm sure Australia is no exception and if people are stupid enough to operate an unlicenced taxi service (which is what Uber is), then they can enjoy whatever delights the courts throw at them.

As for Uber, actively impeding the government might please libertarian nitwits (like Roman Mir), but I expect the courts would take an extremely dim view of such actions since it demonstrates intent to break the law.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[N1AK]

Scores of women have now be raped by Uber drivers, who don't need to show any credentials, but just pretend to be someone providing a ride.

Citation needed. Beyond which I'm sure Taxis are no different. You're likely trolling, but if you're not then just look at the number of places where some of the most common scams include false/unregulated taxis.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uber is under no obligation to accept every potential passenger. They can choose who to do business with and who not to. If they proactively deny their services to a person who happens to be a regulatory inspector - after the customer happens to be discovered as a regulatory bureaucrat - it isn't obstruction of justice, it's merely refusing to do further business with them."

You try that weasel logic in an Australian court and the judge will just laugh at you. If you are denying service to inspector with the intention to obstruct their inspection duties, you are obstructing. Intent matters. Even in US courts.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Richard_at_work]

It is in-fact obstruction of justice, because you are purposefully obstructing the ability of the inspector to do their job *because* they are an inspector. If you were banning them for any other reason it would be fine, but to specifically ban them for conducting inspections - yeah, thats a cut and dried case of obstruction of justice.

Restaurants have the ability to ban customers and refuse them entry to the premises (it is private property) but they don't get to simply ban health inspectors - that gets them shut down pretty damn quickly.

Building sites are private property, you can't trespass on them, but you can't also ban government safety inspectors from coming onto the land through claiming trespass.

Oh, and you do realise that your constitution isn't in force outside the borders and territories of the US, right? So the examples you give don't count.

In other news...

[buckfeta2014]

Uber kicks out city bylaw officers at preliminary business meeting WRT setting up shop in a Canadian city.

http://www.thespec.com/news-st...

Personally, I would rather take uber than take a run down cab, driven by a person who doesn't know the city, let alone drive safely. My last cab ride consisted of a minivan with practically no electrical (the dashboard was lit up like a Christmas tree), bald tires, in 3 feet of snow. Let's just say I'm glad I made it home safely. All these foreigners care about is making a buck. They don't give a shit about their cars, or how they drive (and how it affects their passengers). The people who run these cab companies make back-door deals with the city so they're the only people allowed to obtain medallions, which also prevents competition. Long story short, the taxi cab business is fucked, and I'm glad Uber is taking a stand against these corrupt bastards.

Dont just fine them

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly Uber is obstructing the justice system, but that can be a
two-way street. You should not let this be just a fine. You should
take the violators to the police station and have them spend a
whole day there 'while things get straightened out'. Any no, you
cannot drive your car there, it has been impounded for now
'pending further investigation'.

Apart from this, since Uber is banned and routinely are paying the
fines of those who a violating the law and asking them to ignore the
law, this is really serious. In fact this has a term; Organized crime.

As such, Uber drivers continuing to be in violation of the law are
partaking in organized crime, and should be prosecuted this way.

Community service instead of fines

[abies]

I suppose that requiring 50-100 hours of community service for the drivers instead of fine would have better effect. But to get that it would probably have to go to court and as far as I understand, it is all currently handled in same way as speeding ticket (even if expensive one).

Re:Community service instead of fines

[drinkypoo]

But to get that it would probably have to go to court and as far as I understand, it is all currently handled in same way as speeding ticket (even if expensive one).

Yes, the Australian government knows that the average Australian citizen would actually be annoyed with their government if they knew how much time and money it was spending on preventing them from being able to hire a car from someone who doesn't work with an established taxi company via an Android app, so they don't actually let such cases to go trial because the people would be annoyed with them. I don't know whether Australians have a right to a jury of their peers or not, but in the USA such things are just a way to do an end run around due process, to hide bad laws. They use excuses about the impact on the court system, but if you're putting that many of your citizens into the court system, you've got a bad law.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[sjwt]

And we charge in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to be able to..

totally fucking bull shit, you wonder why it costs so much to catch a cab.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scores of women have now be raped by Uber drivers, who don't need to show any credentials, but just pretend to be someone providing a ride.

At least 40 women, you say? I didn't realise that it was that many. In fact, I'm a bit sceptical of that. Can you provide references indicating 40 cases?

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[drinkypoo]

If you were banning them for any other reason it would be fine, but to specifically ban them for conducting inspections - yeah, thats a cut and dried case of obstruction of justice.

They are using the service for a non-transportation-related service, which constitutes a denial of service for a proper paying customer who will provide repeat business. The inspectors are depriving them of that repeat business.

google can tell govt, do what we say

[cheekyboy]

Do what google says, or they will make your govt and country invisible on the neti, get no tourists.

Aussie taxies suck too btw.

Useless and OVER PRICED.

Charging so called night rates up to 9am. Thats FRAUD, its NOT NIGHT time between 6am and 9am.

They just classify it as expensive night rates, to sting all business travelers in the mornings.

I call the taxi regulators fraudsters.

Re:google can tell govt, do what we say

[UoNTidal]

Charging so called night rates up to 9am. Thats FRAUD, its NOT NIGHT time between 6am and 9am.

That's what you get for living in Victoria. All other states start their regular rates between 6-7am.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[drinkypoo]

You sound like one of those Uber drivers who picks up women rapes them and then goes back for seconds.

I know two women who have been raped by licensed taxi drivers. Licensing always sounds like a great idea until it does nothing.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Richard_at_work]

Yeah, another bullshit argument - government inspectors doing their job is not seen in legal terms as the same as someone deliberately blocking business. You cannot get out of inspections because they stop you from doing your business for a period of time.

Uber = $40b, Govt = $1200B

[cheekyboy]

Thats an underdog.

but Govt has huge debt, and falling revenue. Yeah sucks to be you , for making bad decisions, your loss , you hired dumb ass BAs.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[drinkypoo]

government inspectors doing their job is not seen in legal terms as the same as someone deliberately blocking business

It is seen the same way by people who recognize that they are interfering with commerce in the name of protecting commerce, for no reason other than rent-seeking, because taxi licensing doesn't do any of the things it's supposed to do.

Not smart

[SuperDre]

That's not a smart thing to do, it will only make sure there will be even more strict regulations, and with this, they might even go for the people behind Uber themselves..
I still can't understand why Uber(Pop) thinks they don't have to obey the law.. And let's not forget, Uber isn't in it for bettering the community, they're in it for the money...
They claim they will reimburse drivers if they get a ticket or get their car impounded, but have they already actually payed out when this happened?

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

"paper trail of who got into whose car, where was the ride booked, where was the destination. Aren't they automatically checking the GPS logs that the driver ist taking you from A to B on the shortest route?"

Because it's impossible for a driver to turn off their phone once the passenger enters the vehicle?
It's not like it's hard to sign up to be a driver for uber either.

why protect taxi fuckers, and not IT workers

[cheekyboy]

Why make their lives easier, why not block liimit immigration to protect our IT workers.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Richard_at_work]

Yay, more bullshit arguments which mean fuck all.

Taxi licensing works here in the UK, and it seems to work in Australia as well - don't assume that just because your American system is completely broken that all systems everywhere in the world are broken.

See my comment elsewhere in these comments which show that its easy to get a full, proper taxi license for less than £1500 in the UK - so arguments about the "medallion system" and how you have to pay six figure sums to get into the game are invalid almost everywhere outside America.

And, believe it or not, that system works perfectly well in the UK. And we still have regular inspections of taxis.

XPrivacy to the rescue...

[Anonymous Coward]

An Android tool called XPrivacy can spoof these things, most importantly it can change the IMEI for the Uber app, so the user would just need a new SIM card.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

Both of your counter-examples are not comparable, since they involve access which is codified under the particular legislation/statute. The inspectors have no legislative power that enables them access to the Uber app from any particular phone number/IMEI etc.

I used the "fifth amendment" as an example. Encryption is used in Australia also.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

I think you'll find you're wrong, if you care to do some research. Some operators in Victoria, Australia have paid close to AUD500,000 for a taxi license. The regulatory regime works only for some, and often it isn't the taxi drivers.

unless they get volunteers

[Anonymous Coward]

or get police, fire, etc to use their phones.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

How would launching civil litigation to uphold a contract be subject to "fines" or "contempt"? At worst, someone might get declared a vexatious litigant; but that takes a big effort involving repeated frivolous pleadings. And why would it be dismissed with prejudice? What is your reasoning?

I can't believe the post was modded "Informative".

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Richard_at_work]

My counter examples certainly are comparable - if you block the ability for inspectors to do their job, what makes you think you have the ability to continue to operate?

This isn't a "you can operate until the inspectors find a problem, but good luck finding a problem because I wont let you inspect me" situation.

No inspection, no continuing authority to operate.

Ban health inspectors from your restaurant - restaurant is closed by said inspectors pretty damn quickly.

Ban safety inspectors from your building site - you lose the ability to conduct any building operations on that site pretty damn quickly.

Make it impossible for inspectors to do their job, and your job goes away pretty damn quickly.

Make it impossible for inspectors to randomly inspect Uber drivers, lose your ability to operate any Uber drivers in that jurisdiction.

Inspectors have that power, and its a legitimate power to stop such bullshit tactics like you and others suggest.

The fifth amendment and encryption don't give you the ability to circumvent such ability to stop you conducting business - either you supply the legitimately requested information, or you lose your license to operate. Nuff said really. You can withhold the requested information quite legitimately, but it doesn't mean you also retain the ability to continue to operate. The with drawl of the latter doesn't affect your rights to the former.

Trying to game the system just gets you looked at harder. It doesn't make your problems go away.

Uber is dumb

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If it can detect phones used in stings, it should make a special tag on them. Have a list of super clean vetted operators and send the sting police squad only these rides. Police will think Uber has cleaned up.

Re:Uber is dumb

[l0ungeb0y]

Except they don't vet the operators and happily direct young women into rape mobiles

Just increase the fine

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Add the cost of acquiring the phone to the fine and send the phone to uber after each fine. Change the law to allow this to happen.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

I think you've completely missed the notion that Uber hasn't exactly asked permission to operate in the first place. If they had applied for some kind of license to operate in the first instance then sure; the license could be revoked. Since there isn't one, Uber can operate their business however the hell they want to.

Fines are not high enough

[tompaulco]

When another large corporation gets fined we always cry that the fines are not high enough that the corporation would even feel it and that the money they illegitimately received was higher than the fine. Well, it appears that the fines that Uber is getting is still cheaper than going out and doing business within the law, so why do we side with this corporation and not other corporations that flaunt the law?

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Citations, please.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

An assertion I am sure you can sure you can back up with citations of published news articles or police reports, right?

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Richard_at_work]

Wow, the denial is strong in this one...

You don't need to have a license in the first place to be prevented from operating a business later on. Just because you don't have to get permission to start operating doesn't mean there isn't rules to follow when operating. In the UK you don't need a restaurant license to open a restaurant - but food hygiene inspectors can certainly close you down.

So no, Uber cant "operate their business however the hell they want to". They still fall under the purview of the law regardless of what you think.

Performing quasi-legal shenanigans doesn't work.

Bonds

[Anonymous Coward]

They should make new users (at a very minimum, suspected government plants) post a bond. Issue a fine, say goodbye to your bond.

'Presumably the Uber app can block based on IMEI'

[citizenr]

No, Uber app can block on ANYTHING in your phone, including contact list, sms history, browsing habits. Did you all forget last months article about Uber app permission list and amount of data it collects and sends to the mothership?

Expect the penatlies to go up

[davidwr]

Expect either the fine, penalty, or annoyance to go up to cover the "additional costs" and/or expect the government to start going after Uber itself through either technical means (forcing ISPs/telcos to block or record communication) and/or claiming "worldwide jurisdiction" over the company and its executives.

While any attempt to claim "worldwide jurisdiction" probably won't be honored by other countries, it could impose a de-facto ban on any executives under indictment from visiting Australia.

More likely, the government will change the on-the-spot fine to an actual ticket and require that upon conviction, the now-convicted defendant will have to surrender all revenue made with any taxi-sharing service over the last year plus pay a huge fine. Repeat offenders will likely be required to put a tracker on their car for a year or so and be required to explain all trips made with that vehicle.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people legally prohibited from removing key-loggers clandestinely installed on their PCs by FBI? Are you required to keep talking on your phone if you know that it's been tapped by the government? I don't think so.

Restaurants can't ban health inspectors as long as they identify themselves as health inspectors upon entry, otherwise they are just private individuals and can be banned without explanation. In general, nobody is legally required to bite on a law enforcement's sting bate. Having said that, I highly doubt that the idea of charging the government for calling Uber for the purpose of inspection will fly. It's all more of a push and shove match.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's so cut and dried. I doubt you have to allow undeclared inspectors to inspect anything. That's just a random private citizen until they provide proof that they are an inspector. Same as a building, I can have a private building with no trespassing allowed.. that applies to any random government employee unless they declare they are acting in an official capacity.. then they can assume the authority of the government to enter a private area.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Restaurants have the ability to ban customers and refuse them entry to the premises (it is private property) but they don't get to simply ban health inspectors

There aren't secret health inspectors disguised as customers. There are only surprise health inspectors, and the obligation to do a health inspection is part of getting the restaurant license.

Building sites are private property, you can't trespass on them, but you can't also ban government safety inspectors from coming onto the land through claiming trespass.

I am not so sure about that. We're subject to inspection, and we're told it will be a little more procedural, an appointment with about a week's notice. Also, it's possible to not keep the appointment or not let the inspector in, and the consequence isn't obstruction of justice but a stop-work order.

I think we need an actual lawyer to settle this, not arrogant geeks trying to deduct the law from "first principles," meaning stupid analogies and just-so stories.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[tehcyder]

they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance

People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.

Just because Uber themselves have public liability insurance (and you're right, it would be extraordinary if a business didn't) doesn't mean that an individual driving for Uber is insured to take paying passengers.

They are two totally different things, and my understanding was that drivers don't actually work for Uber, but that Uber act as a middle man between driver and passenger. I hope I'm wrong.

highlights Uber's privacy issue

[Anonymous Coward]

This means Uber tracks all the trips I take on a dossier tied to me by an evercookie that I can only clear by changing phones and phone numbers at the same time. It's a great example of why I don't do apps: the power relations are all screwed up in favour of the "developer" in ways that web pages aren't.

If Uber is successful in the market, it means as a spillover consequence not considered by all these people wanking on about innovation and markets, I'll be forced into privacy-disrespectful cabs. It means the market-maker, which by right according to idealist-capitalist fappery, should be powerless and factored out (an "invisible hand" that brings about an end "no part of his intention"), is instead even more powerful than the current regulating agency: it tracks all customers and drivers and can ban either from participating by unaccountable fiat, while right now at least a kangaroo court is required to ban drivers and nobody can ban customers.

I prefer the ugly entrenched status quo of the regulated cabs because it is _less_ authoritarian than the world ruled by "Apps."

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Australia have an equivalent to RICO?

If so they could use those laws to start jailing drivers, because RICO also includes obstruction of justice.

Re: The most beautiful thing ever!

[david_thornley]

Note that rapes are often not publicly documented. Many women are reluctant even to report them, and if the case does not go to trial the victim's name is likely not to make it into the media.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[david_thornley]

The law is not just a big pile of legal code analogous to a C program, where you can find unforeseen nitpicky cases and exploit them. The law is enforced and interpreted by humans, who fill in some (not all) of the small gaps. That is one of the frequent misconceptions of geeks without real-world legal experience.

In this case, you're supposing that Uber impose a fee for the express purpose of interfering with law enforcement, that it has no intention of enforcing in any other circumstance, and that it try enforcing it in court. Judges aren't stupid, and they do take things like this into account. They have a fair amount of discretion, and may do things like dismiss with prejudice and sanctioning the lawyers stupid enough to be caught dead filing the suit.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Coren22]

I can see the reviews coming in now:

Was raped in cab, would not buy again.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[riverat1]

An activist judge is one who makes a decision you don't like.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[riverat1]

Restaurants have the ability to ban customers and refuse them entry to the premises (it is private property) ...

Restaurants and other "open to the public" businesses have very limited ability to ban customers and refuse them entry (in the US at least). They are not allowed to refuse service on the basis of race, sex, religion, and lately sexual orientation. They can refuse service to people for things like not wearing a shirt.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, don't worry. Evidence will be along soon... Unlike local taxi firms who have real people in management who physically see their drivers every day, Uber's just an app that connects people, right? I'm sure evidence is being gathered right now.

Re:The most beautiful thing ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

There shouldn't be anything easier than catching and putting into jail a rapist driver if you have the (electronic) paper trail ...

Really? What if the Uber driver bought a phone giving a fake name and address? Easily done. What if they also bought a car with a fake ID? Again, easily done.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[JonathanR]

Oh lookee! Someone didn't even do some basic research before making his unfounded assertions.

http://www.food.gov.uk/busines...

"You must register your premises with the environmental health service at your local authority at least 28 days before opening – registration is free."

And:

https://www.gov.uk/food-busine...

Contact the council to register your business if you want to carry out any ‘food operations’.

Food operations include:

        selling food
        cooking food
        storing or handling food
        preparing food
        distributing food

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[TsuruchiBrian]

And if I am a member of congress, then an activist judge is one that makes decisions that undermine the laws I make (even though we are part of the same government).

Not above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Uber promotes itself as a technology company, it is not above the law.

They keep repeating that the local by-laws and ordinances do not apply to them because they are a technology company.
If you take a request from someone to be picked up and driven somewhere, and then paid at the end of the trip, you are a taxi/limousine company.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, even if it is purple.
Napster and the pirate bay tried to avoid the law by trying to be above it, eventually they were shut down.
The same will happen to Uber.

Uber has been shut down already in may countries in Europe, India, etc. In Canada the province of British Columbia has banned the app. In Ontario Ottawa has issued fines to drivers, Hamilton and London are ready to do so when the start.
Dump your shares while you can.

Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail

[ceoyoyo]

I believe in the US that's called "checks and balances."

Agree...

[jopsen]

I'm pretty sure Uber will look into it if you rate a driver zero stars with the comment "creep tried to rape me" :)

And I'd bet that Uper is checking meticulously that you're not cutting into Ubers share by booking only the first half of your ride by Uber and pay the driver cash for the rest of the trip.

Also drivers are pretty happy not to have cash... it's a lot faster to deal with payment through Uber and you're not a target for robbery.
Furthermore Uber does provide some insurance (at least I heard they do in the US) when the driver is carrying a passenger...