Slashdot Mirror
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.
Because that's how you get legislation.
"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.
So Uber decided to trade a small fine for operating an unlawful taxi for criminal charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Smart.
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
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.
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?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
"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!!
Nothing posted to
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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.