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.
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
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.
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.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.