Slashdot Mirror
Indian Woman Sues Uber In the US Over Alleged New Delhi Taxi Rape
"Uber has been the subject of controversy all around the globe," notes new submitter yuetteasvy (3999351), who supplies this story from Reuters about one of the reasons for that controversy: An Indian woman who says she was raped by an Uber driver while she was traveling in his cab in December is suing the San Francisco–based online firm in a U.S. federal court in California, claiming it failed to put in place basic safety procedures while running its car service in India. In her lawsuit, filed on Thursday, the New Delhi woman called the app-based service the "modern day equivalent of electronic hitchhiking." The unidentified plaintiff also calls for Uber to overhaul its safety practices, and seeks unspecified damages in the case, according to Reuters. The news agency quoted Uber as saying that it's "deepest sympathies remain with the victim of this horrific crime." Earlier, the woman was reported to have enlisted the services of Douglas Wigdor, a high-profile U.S. lawyer who represented Nafissatou Diallo, the New York City hotel maid who accused the former International Monetary Fund managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office went on to drop all charges against Strauss-Kahn, while a civil suit was settled out of court.
Rape is infuriatingly common in our world, while reporting and/or prosecution for the offense are comparitively rare. So, this probably isn't the first time this has happened. For the survivor's sake and for the sake of setting a precedent (Uber must find a way to stop this from happening), I hope the lawsuit is successful.
Will you say the same, if UBER ignored a legal requirement in the US to conduct background checks? Didn't take any action when someone who travelled in the same car as the rapist reported the rapist for making her feel uncomfortable? Liability attaches to UBER.
And who up voted you? Come on slashdot, you are better than this!
Any this is why we cannot have nice things. Any attempt at improvements and progress is immediately attacked by those who seek egoistical gain or cry for an ever bigger nanny-state, or as in this case both.
Blaming somebody's crime on Uber because they used the app is as absurd as blaming Tinder for failing to screen and monitor its users. (Although, I'm sure somebody will eventually sue for that as well).
If they refuse to play by the same rules, then they have a hard time claiming their process is even better than the legal process they're supposed to use, without actually doing an almost perfect job.
Once they start following the same rules and checks as taxis, then if there is a problem all we have to ask is, "are they any worse than taxis?"
When it is a group that is in ongoing violation of the regulations, I just don't see why they qualify for the protection offered by having complied with the process. After all, that is the taxi company's excuse; background checks are regulated, and they did the checks that are supposed to work.
If they refuse to play by the same rules,
Uber is doing background checks on drivers - at least as well as cab companies.
No. Nonono. "We're doing it just as well as the way we're supposed to, that's why we refuse to follow the rules." That just doesn't fly.
It is totally dishonest to both not be in compliance with the rules, and to claim to be in compliance with them because... "gosh our way is just as good."