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.
Buying a new phone, 50 aud or so? New credit card is probably free and whatever the other costs are...
Having a government official recognized and blocked by a private corporation (by private person really)... priceless. Just priceless. All governments should be blocked by everybody, the besy way to stop government oppression is to stop participating in it. If everybody stops participating in the system actively, governments will have no power and they should be denied power.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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"
Forget about fining drivers, Uber will just pay the fines.
Start impounding cars.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This rule is not suspended for the sake of China...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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
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.
"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".
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
ENTJ
"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.
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".
They're breaking the law. They're getting fined. Go have your little libertardian circle-jerk somewhere else; we just cleaned the rugs.
Maybe, if Australia has "activist judges" like in America :)
What exactly is the relationship between Uber and UberX, here?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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.
The reason your reductio ad absurdum does not work is because there is probably legislation that compels a driver to stop a vehicle at the direction of a police officer. The failure in your argument is that commerce between private persons is at the discretion of the individuals and there are only a few causes where contracts would be rendered void.
BTW, you seem to suffer from excessive sucking-up to authority. Have you begun your treatment for Stockholm Syndrome yet?
"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.
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.
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.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
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.
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).
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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.
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.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
Why make their lives easier, why not block liimit immigration to protect our IT workers.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
or get police, fire, etc to use their phones.
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".
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.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
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?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
They should make new users (at a very minimum, suspected government plants) post a bond. Issue a fine, say goodbye to your bond.
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?
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
An activist judge is one who makes a decision you don't like.
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.
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
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).
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.
I believe in the US that's called "checks and balances."
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...