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.
Rubio, state lawmakers push for deregulation of taxi industry (in Florida) Honestly, we all saw this coming a mile away. Taxi companies in general don't exactly have the most stellar reputation and it's quite possible for people to fake being a taxi but even easier to fake being an Uber driver. The whole situation will likely be used by both political sides for their own petty interests and not focus on the woman's situation.
Meanwhile, I don't think the woman is actually too interested in justice or anything but is interested in money from Uber as it's quite insane to hold the stance that there's any level of safety precautions that Uber could take to prevent a would be rapist to become any form of a taxi driver (as if that's the only means to get women alone and rape them). That isn't to say I think Uber does a great job at verifying people, but 99% of companies follow the same shit standards on claims they make. It's just that most people aren't raped as a result and can't use that emotional leverage to funnel money out of a company. None of that, of course, does anything to resolve things because then it becomes "business as usual" to pay off people for all sorts of claims--and I'm not at all talking about just Uber, as this is an epidemic problem.
Want to see real change and justice? Talk to the actual owners of Uber and see if you can convince them to make a better company. It probably wouldn't have stopped the lady's rape, but it will at least make you feel better that Uber might actually try.
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).
What standing does she have to sue in the US?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!
We have a winner! Johnny, tell them what he has won....
(crickets)
Johnny?
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Welcome to the global economy. Uber USA's decision of cost-saving, lax hiring practices in India was indirectly responsible for this rape.
Cab drivers rape people occasionally also; if they can't be stopped from doing so after being in business for decades why should Uber be able to spot someone any better? The problem is that some people just fly under the radar of screening.
I had a cab driver who was borderline pscho, and almost refused to take money from my wife while I went around back to collect the bags.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
but the simple line "reported to have enlisted the services of Douglas Wigdor, a high-profile U.S. lawyer" kind of sounds like this could be coming from enemies of Uber, with purposely filed false claims to attack Uber. Some woman from India can afford or has been able to easily contact a high profile lawyer? This would be the perfect kind of attack coming from the people who want to see Uber fall. Of course it's absolutely horrible if the case is real, but with the enemies Uber has it sounds a little fishy to me. :/
The facts have been misrepresented in this case both in the Indian media and now in the U.S press. UBER did indeed ask for a police certified character certificate from the driver and the driver in turn handed them one, albeit a forged certificate. Any Indian who has worked with security agencies will tell you that Indian police character verification certificate is simply expensive paper to wipe your ass with. They have no standard format, are easily faked and are expensive to obtain no matter whom you pay - the crooks in uniform who give you one for a bribe or the crooks not in uniform who make forged copies for a fee. There is no central verification database which companies can use to authenticate one of these certificates. How then was UBER supposed to figure out that the certificate he handed them was a forged one? UBER is a boon for middle class Indians who are otherwise at the mercy of corrupt autorickshaw drivers who have no fixed metering and fleece customers based on the hour. Also, there is atleast some sort of traceability in a cab. Had the victim been raped by an autorickshaw driver, the case would still be unsolved: just another file in a mountain of open rape cases that the Indian police is too incompetent to deal with. What happened to her was terrible, but she is being an opportunist here. This is less about ushering in accountability from UBER than it is about squeezing UBER for every penny she can. It saddens me that a fellow Indian would resort to this.
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.
How did she manage to get hooked up with the same lawyer? How did a citizen living in India get connected with a high-profile lawyer in New York?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Right, directly responsible gets you charged with "rape" and placed in jail, indirectly responsible gets you a lawsuit. Nobody is claiming it is the same.
Begs the question, who is behind this? I mean, DSK was French politics, but I can't figure out who here draws that kind of attention and money.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Generally you have to have been harmed as least $20 to get into small claims court (varies by state, YMMV) so depending on surge pricing you may or may not be able to sue and attempt to prove your damages in court. Unfortunately for you, being late to meet your friends is unlikely to be something that can be made whole by money, so you're not going to be able to ask for more than the return of the fare. If you had been late to work and lost your job, you could conceivably sue for up to 6 months of wages. You'd lose, of course, because a reasonable person taking a cab or "rideshare that is just people sharing a ride not a real taxi" would know they might arrive late.
What you'd need would be a video of the driver later laughing at you for complaining about the flat tire, and sarcastically saying, "yeah, I got the flat on purpose." Then if he had an accent, and the sarcasm wasn't clear enough, you might even win.
Put a cam on the driver. That should help, I think.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If they refuse to play by the same rules,
Uber is doing background checks on drivers - at least as well as cab companies. Probably better because who can say how many cab drivers make it in via political favors? Uber is far newer, and thus far less corrupt than decades old cab companies at this point.
When it is a group that is in ongoing violation of the regulations,
*cough*Cab Companies*cough*
It's for instance regulation to charge a certain rate from the port to the airport in Miami. Guess what really happens? You get extra fees added on when it's time to pay. Who are you going to complain to, really? The fact is that cab companies break far more regulations every day than Uber follows in spirit, even though not technically bound to them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Condolences to the victim, of course.
When I say, "It took this long?" I mean that a completely unregulated livery (taxi) service went this long without some Uber driver or other comitting a major crime upon one of their 'customers'?
We have regulations on taxis FOR GOOD REASONS.
The wise will short-sell stock in Uber. Or just avoid it. Too much arrogance and scofflaw-like attitude.
What flies with me is systems that work better than old corrupt systems.
Plainly Uber does a better job overall than cabs, or people would not use them.
If you are so hidebound to rules that you must follow them to your detriment, then there is no help for you I fear.
When regulations do nothing to help real people, and only restrict compassion with an old failed system - it is morally wrong to follow those regulations. I few Uber (and other companies like them) as the ultimate form of civil disobedience, and feel it is my duty as a citizen who wants to see a better world to make use of them and promote them when possible.
I have NO connection to Uber. Just a lifetime of experience with the world of Cabs that you are trying to keep us all mired in, a lifetime of poor to horrific experiences.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Um that background check only applies in the US, this happened in ANOTHER country. So this case should take place in that country instead of wasting US tax payer $$$ on a another countries court battle.
Right, so women are supposed to walk around at all times with a gun in their hand, never setting it down for anything, and have a proximity radar to warn them if anyone is approaching them where they can't see so that she can pump them full of lead?
Why, I bet the gun will just shoot the rohipnol right out of drinks too!
The percent of rape cases in which having a gun could have helped is probably in in the single digits. And with it of course carries the risk of escalating the risk of getting you seriously injured or killed.
I would have you sign my banana, but it's on the roof.
There's a lot of ignorance about the incident and about India here. I don't know whether they are legally liable in the US, but their conduct is questionable. I am utterly amazed how they have avoided harsh criticism in the twittery world of people looking desperately for something to be outraged about.
In a country notorious for being incredibly unsafe for women, they made these claims (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/in-mumbai-it-bragged-our-quality-checks-most-rigorous/):
"“Globally and especially in India, Uber is working towards making urban transit safer for women. Let me tell you, it’s one of our biggest concerns and we’re doing a number of things to drive that agenda. “In addition to their individual employers screening them, each of our driver partners are put through a rigorous quality control process, that is implemented religiously across the country even before a partner gets behind the wheel of your vehicle. In fact screening for safe drivers is just the beginning of our safety efforts. ”Our process includes prospective and routine checks of drivers’ license and vehicle records to ensure ongoing safe driving. Unlike the taxi industry, our background checking process and standards are so detailed, it is often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver. Moreover, most of our partners are introduced to us via our preferred partners, which means that someone in the system has to vouch for their track record, creating a referral system of trust.”
They hired a driver with a long criminal record based on a forged police certificate. http://timesofindia.indiatimes...? No way in hell does an unverified piece of paper count as a comprehensive background check in India, and you would damn well know that before making claims like the ones above. Especially when you specifically claim to provide a safe option for women.
Then they ignored a complaint about the same driver by a female customer days before the rape: https://au.news.yahoo.com/worl...
I cannot go on about the kind of red flags this should have set off.
Also, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/...
"Uber users can see the name, photo and phone number of the driver when booking a cab. However, in this case, the driver's phone was not registered in his name making it harder to trace him."
Their GPS tracking works via the drivers phone and the customers phone with the app installed. It's worthless, anyone who wants to circumvent it can.
They came to a country where women desperately need a safe mode of transport, made explicit claims about providing a safe service for women, and were utterly callous and negligent and deceptive.
As I said, I don't know about legal liability, but please find out more before making 'cars don't rape people, people do' posts.
All the sources I have quoted are newspapers with very decent standards of journalism. Don't go by the page 3 stuff on their sites - major Indian newspapers often have tabloid page 3 crap comparable to the worst tabloids, but their journalistic standards while far from impeccable are way better than say Fox News.
There is no taxpayer money wasted.
You are an idiot.
The involved parties pay for the lawsuit. Either the losing side for the total, or if the case is a draw, both their 50% share.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How is this Ubers fault? This is like suing a newspaper for not doing background checks on people sending/calling in classified adds when something bad happens in regards to them. Uber is just creating the meeting place for people to exchange a service, not providing the service themselves. People who use it have to recognize that fact and take proper precautions, as you would with any classified/craigslist/etc add.
I "am not happy" with my Apple products. Can I game the USA legal system to become millionaire too?
Have we suddenly forgotten how totally crappy public transport in India is? Where 6 men can rape a woman to death with a steel pipe in a crowded pubic bus and nobody intervenes? Or the 6 guys who raped a Swiss tourist who was bicycling? Or this copycat rape where the bus driver and bus conductor refused to let the woman off the bus, drove to an isolated spot, raped her, and 5 others also joined in? Or the police refusing to listen, instead laughing when the family tried to report their two girls missing - they were later found raped and hanged?
Have we forgotten the Indian practice of bride burning if the wife doesn't bring what the groom and his family considers an adequate dowry with her?
On second thought, let me rephrase that. Have we suddenly forgotten how much of a sh*thole India is if you're a woman and you're not high-caste and moneyed? The problem isn't Uber, or this crass venue-shopping. The problem is India.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It is infuriating that people get the facts of this case wrong.
1) It was rape. Period. Medical examinations after the fact confirmed it, and the rapist confessed, not only to raping this woman, but also to raping the woman in 2011, for which he was acquitted.
2) Uber India does NOT perform background checks at all, so they are liable. There can't be specualtion as to the thoroughness of their background check process, becasue there isn't one. They claim to require a commercial permit to drive a taxi, but clearly, they don't verify the validity of such a document, because not only wasn't the rapist permitted to drive local taxis, his permit was forged.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/asia/new-delhi-bans-uber-after-driver-is-accused-of-rape.html?_r=0
I'm kidding but... what possible means of preventing this sort of thing is there besides just going full Sharia law with it?
And how would that prevent rapes?
Ezekiel 23:20
Well, theoretically she'd only be raped by family members or whomever her arranged husband was... but I'm assuming getting raped by random cab drivers is less practical under Sharia law. Because they're escorted by men all the time. Right?
Look, my point was that under any circumstances there are going to be rapes. ONE rape is not cause to change anything. If you get a pattern that is statistically excessive then you have a problem. But if it is the normal rapey background noise then how is that the company's fault?
Again... if you want it to go to zero, then you have to segregate the sexes. Which I'm all for if only because I think it would be funny. I'd love to see a town that was 100 percent women all the time. I think it would be an interesting anthropological experiment. There are already 100 percent male towns. Typically remote mining towns and lumber towns. But they do exist. I don't know of a single all female town anywhere in the world. I know of some female matriarchies. I know there is one in south america. I forget where. But they have men... they're just not in charge.
Anyway, so long as the sexes mix... occasionally a dude is going to rape a chick. it is going to happen. Just do your best to make it infrequent and punish the perp.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Well, Uber does operate in India, and it was a Uber employee who did this rape while on the job. BART would only be responsible if one of its employees murdered a passenger on a trip b/w Hayward and SF.
2. Sharia law means a woman needs 4 witnesses to prove that she was raped. Otherwise she'd be guilty of adultery & then jailed.
What exactly are you smoking?
Your loss is not equal to your damage. He was "damaged" the cost of the trip, plus the cost of being late. So that' easily over $20, even for a $5 ride.
Learn to love Alaska
No captain strawman. I didn't say people don't rape people. I said quite clearly that they do and that is bad. I said instead that a certain amount of rape just like a certain amount of murder is unavoidable. People are going to do bad things to each other on occasion.
In the event you're talking about my sexual segregation idea which was a joke... in that case the sexes would be segregated... so men could rape men and women could rape women but neither sex could practically rape the other.
Seriously, anyone know of a town that is 100 percent female all the time? Just curious. I know there are some all male towns. Again... remote mining and lumber camps. But I am curious if there are any all female towns anywhere in the world. I think it might be anthropologically interesting to see how an all female community is structured. And if none exists anywhere, then that would be additionally interesting.
Doubtless it is the patriarchy... damn patriarchy. :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You waved your hands, but you didn't propose a theory of how he was harmed.
1. it was a joke.
2. well that's another way to deal with rape allegations I guess.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Ah, the "I'm too dumb to think of it, do it must be impossible" argument. He was late. To what, I'm not sure. Being late can cause harm. Can you not think of any ways being late could cause harm?
Learn to love Alaska
We do know what to. He said, "I was late to meet my friends."
And it doesn't matter how important what he was late to was, unless you can prove some sort of gross negligence or that he was intentionally harmed.
It starts from, "Would a reasonable person believe that a [less-than-taxi] ride sharing service has guaranteed arrival time?" So even without considering the terms of service, we can already easily arrive at, no, a reasonable person would know that a ride service, even a real taxi, does not guarantee arrival times. And indeed, an arrival time is never even negotiated. So any harm that is caused by his being late rests on his own shoulders; cars sometimes get flat tires. It can be expected that a car has a chance to get a flat tire, even a hired car. It doesn't matter what the harm is unless you can prove that it is the fault of the driver or ride company.
You certainly never would have a person on the side of "there is no liability for that" having to brainstorm theories of harm. The person asserting liability has to do that. Be default there is no liability; some reason has to be provable.
A jury is going to be very upset at having their time wasted by somebody claiming that they didn't know part of hiring a car was that the car might get a flat tire, be stuck in traffic, or otherwise break down or be late. It is a known and obvious part of transportation by automobile. It is going to be difficult even to keep a straight face while claiming, "I never knew it was possible for a hired car to get a flat tire, and now that I know, I blame the driver. The driver certainly must have known that the car can get a flat tire, and negligently didn't maintain the tire properly." See how much fail there is there? To make it the drivers fault, it has to be both totally unknown to a reasonable consumer that there is a risk of flat tire, and also so well known to the driver that failure to prevent it is not only negligent, but grossly negligent. And in a ride-share, the driver is claimed to be an amateur just "sharing" a ride, not a professional taxi driver, so it rapidly gets more and more stupid. This is all long before you need to worry about what he was late for with his friends.
Compare that to rape. It is almost exactly the opposite; you'll have a hard time convincing a jury that being raped by a company representative is a normal risk that you would anticipate as part of the service. How do you even make the claim? "She should have known that being a woman and leaving the house, she might get raped." The jury isn't going to be in a good mood.
The defense for a taxi company is that the industry is regulated, the risk is regulated, and the local government decides on granting the driver a taxi license or not, and so the company has followed the system. It isn't their fault, primarily because the regulation establish the standard of how much checking they are supposed to do. So it is hard to make a free-form, "didn't do enough" type of argument. Without complying with that regulation, Uber doesn't have any of that protection. They can't hide behind the government. And if the plaintiff can show they made a minor mistake or oversight, or that they could have done better, or that some particular rapist would not have received a taxi license, well then they might win a giant lawsuit.
Actually, disabling substances are used in the vast majority of rapes. The most common is alcohol (trying to get the victim too drunk to resist or looking for someone who already is, in about two thirds of rapes), but drugs are used in about 20% of additional rapes. Very, very few rapes follow the classic Hollywood script of "stranger leaps out of the bushes with a knife" - so vanishingly few that the scenario is statistically almost nonexistant. Disabling substances are extremely popular because 1) they work very well, 2) the victim often can't remember the attacker well if at all, 3) the victim is not in a state to be making a report until long after the event, 4) the victim's ability to make legally reliable testimony is compromised. Why would people choose the Hollywood way over that?
And I'm sorry, but if you think that you can watch everything you consume every second of every evening you're out and not slip up, you're an idiot. And yes, the reason people get mad at people like you is that the problem is that there are people out there drugging other peoples' drinks en masse and thinking that this is acceptable behavior, not that victims haven't gained supernatural abilities to hyperfocus on everything they may potentially consume at all times and never slip up. "Look, I'm sorry that you're dying of pancreatic cancer, but you should have been getting pancreatic function tests daily and working two jobs to pay for weekly MRI scans to find it before it could have posed a threat to you, and because you weren't, it's your own damned fault, and don't act like I'm a jerk for pointing this out!" That's how you come across when you take that tack. The problem is the f***ing cancer, not the victim.
I would have you sign my banana, but it's on the roof.
The defense for a taxi company is that the industry is regulated, the risk is regulated, and the local government decides on granting the driver a taxi license or not, and so the company has followed the system. It isn't their fault, primarily because the regulation establish the standard of how much checking they are supposed to do. So it is hard to make a free-form, "didn't do enough" type of argument.
You are wrong. Following a regulation is not a shield from liability, unless the regulation explicitly states it as such, and almost none do.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Just stop. You don't know law. And you are wrong on every point here. Yes, I'm not posting cite. You aren't worth the time. Reality can't be disproved by some idiot on the Internet, so I cite reality. It's right, you are wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
You say I'm wrong about a general principle I didn't claim. And your generalization of what I said isn't accurate.
Just keep reading until what I said makes sense. When it makes sense and is a factually correct statement, you successfully comprehended what you read. If it seems factually incorrect, you're simply misunderstanding what was written. And from your response, it seems you went between the lines and added your own stuff, that turned out to be incorrect.
You obviously didn't understand what I said, so why comment on it? Just stop. I do know law, and speaking against things I didn't say, and pretending I said them, doesn't prove that you know law, or that I don't.
In the type of case being discussed, yes, following regulations intended to manage the risk of criminality by employees will indeed shield a company from accusations that they shouldn't have hired the person because of some claimed risk. The whole point is that the company isn't accused of having participated in a crime. That's what you seem to imply when you say, "Following a regulation is not a shield from liability." Nobody said that. It is a shield from claims that the specific act that was regulated (in this case, the background check of the driver) was negligent. If the regulation tells the company what background checks to do, and they did those checks correctly, then that does indeed shield them from accusations that their background checking is negligent. It absolutely shields them from claims their background checks were grossly negligent, which is what is usually going to need to be proved.
Then prove it. Point to a law that states there is any shield of liability. Because if it's not there, it doesn't exist. But I can't prove there's nothing there. "___" There, I've just quoted the nothing that proves my point.
Learn to love Alaska
Victim is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Culprit is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
and
http://www.firstpost.com/livin...
Casteism
This could have happened to this person anywhere from any service.
Nope, it wouldn't have happened if this person used a service that ACTUALLY conducts background checks instead of promising them and not conducting them. This guy was a serial rapist and their "background check" did fuck all. So no...this wouldn't have happened to a service that did their job.
The only solution so far as I can see is to ban all women from using any service without a trusted male chaperone.
The solution is to conduct actual background checks. As the PROMISE they will.
And which services in India perform these checks? Not just says they do but actually does them?
As to what Uber does in india, I've seen nothing that shows me that they conduct less then their competitors. Are you saying the indian cab companies conduct more extensive background checks, verify documents, and make sure that there aren't forgeries?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The next time you're on a murder trial, try telling the judge "But...but...other people murder too!" See how well that works out for you.
This case is about Uber. No one gives a damn about other cab companies. The culpability of Uber is not diminished by whether or not other people are doing the same thing. Guilt is not determined by what other people do. If Uber promised stringent background checks, and then did a fuckall job with no concern to ACTUALLY conduct they checks, then they are guilty period.
I see, so it is appropriate to single Uber out because they have money and are a foreign company disrupting entrenched industries.
But it isn't reasonable to point out that you're holding them to a double standard that no one else in their markets are held to?
Let me tell you something about any competent justice system, they all have a concept of "reasonableness". If someone says "this or that is bad" you can respond "perhaps but there is no reasonable way to counter that". Reasonableness is a core tenant of any effective justice system. The instant you stop caring what is and is not reasonable is the instant you've created an erradic, unpredictable, and ultimately hostile system that no one will trust or feel comfortable with.
Your black and white interpretation of everything is what you saw in revolutionary France during the Reign of Terror. When your sort of ethos is applied what happens is everyone is marched to the execution block and the blood flows like water.
Be reasonable. If no one else in their industry is held to that standard, then you can change the rules... apply them to everyone... and if Uber fails to update their policies to keep up with local customs then you can dock them. However, singling out a new player in a market for doing things no differently then the established players merely reeks of corruption.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It is absolutely appropriate yes. If Uber is guilty, they can be sued. It's not a legal defence to say "Oh! Others do it too!!"
You claim it's a double standard. If so, show me where another company was taken to court for something like this, and the court found them innocent. Then you can claim double standards.
So you want to talk about "reasonableness". Excellent. Let's talk about "reasonableness". Do you think it's "reasonable" to conduct a stringent...STRINGENT...background check and let a serial rapist with a police record go through? Trust me...no court in the land will call that a "reasonable check".
Uber claims to be above the standard. Read their advertising. Their whole business model is that they are SAFER than other companies. So yeah - let's talk about "reasonableness". I'm ready.
So... if there is a law on the books that says you can't wear orange on an alternate tuesday... and the law has never in 1000 years ever been actually applied.
Then you make a police officer mad... and he responds by arresting you for it.
That is just fine?
See... reasonableness is the key here.
If it is reasonable to apply the law to Uber, then fine. Apply it. If it is NOT reasonable then do not.
I argue that it is not reasonable to single out a new comer to an industry to meet a standard that existing companies in that industry have never really had to meet.
You disagree... Because... you don't believe in being reasonable. You're not a reasonable person. And since you're not a reasonable person, it is literally impossible to reason with you. Which means having any kind of discussion with you where reason is relevant becomes impossible.
Sorry... you're crazy.
Good day.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Umm...yes. That IS fine. That's how the law works. And if you'd like to learn more, please read up on several court rulings which convict people for laws on the statute books even if no one has used them for a long time. I'm sorry, but your factual knowledge here is simply not in accordance with reality.
In any case, we are not talking about defunct laws here. Consumer protection laws are used in India all the time, and in every state. The fact that specific cab companies have not been sued under it is no reason to claim that these are out of date or defunct laws as implied in your original post. That is what is known as a false analogy, which doesn't work out even if we give in to the absurd proposition in the first place!
You say it's not reasonable to single out a single company. Do you even realize how that sounds? Change has to begin somewhere. You cannot put off taking someone to court by saying "Oh, but OTHERS are also breaking the law". That is so absurd.
If you get caught by the police for speeding, you cannot tell the judge that others were speeding and they didn't get caught. Don't take my word for it. Go try it and see for yourself :)
No legal system that abandons any notion of what is and is not reasonable survives for very long. You create an atmosphere of fear that encourages bribery and corruption which ultimately makes the "law" one of making sure that the police/government officials are properly bribed. And on that basis you avoid legal troubles.
That is what happens when reason ceases to matter... force, bribery, extortion, and coercion become the orders of the day.
You say that in some cases given courts will apply the law in arbitrary illogical ways to suit the vested interests of given parties? I'm sure it happens... but if it becomes common, then the court becomes a joke.
Given that I like rule of law, I must also respect what is and is not reasonable. And that is the line that divides us.
Good day.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You seem to be indulging in wishful thinking. If you want to give your opinion on what should be the case, you are most welcome to do so. However, I am telling you what the situation is. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.
Now when it comes to what is "reasonable", that is a matter of opinion. I do not find it at all unreasonable that Uber is being sued. You see, that is the difference between facts and opinion. We can differ as to our subjective opinion of what is reasonable.
But to argue over facts is illogical. I am giving you the facts. I also happen to think it's reasonable.
Use it in more than one case...hmm...I wonder which other cab company that has openly promised stringent background checks has let a serial rapist through who has actually committed a crime.
Hmm......
Must be dozens right? Any references? Give me 5 such cases. Or wait. Give me just 3. Then we'll talk.
Not to mention that consumer protection laws are used thousands of times every year. So what's your case again? And I'm sorry, there's no way you can have a decent legal background if you're so ignorant of the facts. Come...show me one court case in India where the accused has been let off simply because they were booked under an arcane (but accurate) law.
So you allege that Uber is the only company in indian history to have a cab driver that raped someone?
And do we even know if he actually did it? I mean... was he convicted? Or are you one of those "listen and believe" people that thinks due process doesn't apply to rape cases?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Who is talking about him being convicted? This is about not doing proper background checks. This is not the forum to argue over whether or not he committed this particular rape. Even without it, the case against Uber stands.
If you claim that another cab company has promised STRINGENT background checks over and above the existing competition and has then let through a blatantly guilty person with a criminal record, you are most welcome to provide a reference.
Till then, au revoir!
And no where have you shown me any evidence that the standard you are holding them to is the industry standard in India.
Absent that fact, Uber is at worst no worse then their existing peers in the industry. If that is the case, then going after them reeks of corruption. It looks like the same old strategy used throughout the world to keep new competition out of established industries. New guy shows up... and the existing industries bribe the politicians and officials to fuck over the new company and drive them out of the market.
That is what this looks like at best. I can actually think of worse things going on here. But if you're only going after Uber for doing something that common in that market... then I'm calling bullshit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I don't have to show you evidence, because the court will decide that :) .
And I disagree. For example, just because the BJP is corrupt, does not mean that we can't take the Congress to court for corruption. It's no excuse to say "Oh, everyone's doing it!".
Sorry, that's just not how the law works.