Slashdot Mirror
Uber Offers Free Rides To Koreans, Hopes They Won't Report Illegal Drivers
itwbennett writes Uber Technologies is offering free rides on its uberX ride-sharing service in the South Korean capital of Seoul, after city authorities intensified their crackdown on illegal drivers by offering a reward to residents who report Uber drivers to police. South Korean law prohibits unregistered drivers from soliciting passengers using private or rented vehicles and carries a penalty of up to two years in prison or fines of up to 20 million won.
Because we gotta make that paper, bitches.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
I wonder why Uber don't have the appropriate license? I mean I'm the government were willing to grant it on the same basis as they would for anyone else... oh wait...
They're so shitty I had to say it TWICE!
From that site, one of the most important claim is "using unlicensed drivers with some of its services", sometimes getting an unlicensed veichle + driver when you order a Uber drive isn't very good, and I do think the comapny should pay dearly for that. Now there are people who only care about getting cheap services, but in the case of Uber you pay the same amount for a licensed and an unlicensed driver.
The amount of unlicensed Uber drivers seems to be rather small here, but they do exist sadly, and I find it strange that Uber doesn't try harder to fix this problem.
North Korea
This just confirms that most of us are unwitting passengers in this world. Uber is being pushed out, presumably to take control of the movement of people and report all movement, We're paying because we're willing to - suckers. Those that won't pay don't have to..
Why are these kind of laws in place, anyway? Assuming the driver has a license and and is insured then what is the problem? Maybe they would need to get a (more expensive) insurance that covers passengers. But why forbid this by law?
Uber is ride sharing in the same way pizza delivery is food sharing. People and companies are making money off of it therefore it is not sharing.
Nobody cares about your Uber obsession.
I find it strange that Uber doesn't try harder to fix this problem.
Not at all strange. They are sociopathic libertarian company devoted to "disruption", which is generally code for "we break the law if it gets in the way of us making money and we think we can get away with it".
2. ???
3. Profit!
Why is Snark Required?
You realise that the people here who can actually "report all movement" are Uber?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
And they're not really very concerned about privacy either when it suits them:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
They are sociopathic libertarian company devoted to "disruption", which is generally code for "we break the law if it gets in the way of us making money and we think we can get away with it".
The funny thing about that, is that pretty much describes every big company I know.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yes, the "disruptive" factor is that a small(ish) company can do it now too, not having to be part of the big boys club first. That's just not on!
regardless of what you think of Uber's model, blatantly breaking a countries laws or incenting others to break laws is just asking for trouble. I am surprised more criminal charges haven't been brought down on the CEO's and other execs at Uber, could see some interesting tests of those extradition laws.
Actually what you've described is "business". It's "disruption" only when those very same principles are causing problems for established large businesses.
that because something uses the internet or an app it is somehow different from the same activity done the "old" way; when all the new thing is is an old process enabled by a different technology. If you got a bunch of people to agree to let you dispatch them to pick up rides and charge for them, added a bunch of POTS lines to handle the calls, and then connected paying passengers with drivers, you would be called an unlicensed cab company. Uber simply replaced the POTS lines with an app, the rest of the process is the same and yet they think they are different because they use disruptive technology; when a bunch of POTS lines is just as disruptive if not as convenient as an app.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Everyone here is all about "Net Neutrality," because they are against monopolies, yet pile on something like Uber which is an alternative to the licensed taxi monopoly. Furthermore, people are focusing on the positives and negatives of Uber as it is implemented and practiced, and are missing the larger picture. If Uber is a crappy, dangerous way to get a ride, that reputation is going to spread and the company is going to fail. If it's as safe as a regular taxi and provides benefits that people would not find with normal taxi service, it'll prosper. Quite a few comments seem to revolve around the fact that Uber acts as a middleman, and don't like that. Are those same people pissing and moaning about everything from Ebay to Walmart, which also acts as a middleman between producers and consumers? For that matter, what is the practical difference from me asking a person if they will give me a ride for gas money and an extra $20 for their time, even if I don't use an app? Personally, I wouldn't use Uber, but I also wouldn't smoke pot, yet think people should be free to do either if they are willing to assume the risk involved. If Uber sees that people don't have confidence in the trustworthiness of their drivers, then they are going to have to respond to that, or lose business.
Why? The main use of registration is to keep the number of cabs low and the prices high.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Its pretty clear that New York and other cities just need to simply pass a law making it a crime to drive for Uber without a taxi license, proof of fitness to drive, and proof of liability insurance and give out rewards to anyone turning in an unregistered, unfit or uninsured driver. Everyone will then get free rides from Uber and the city's transportation costs will be solved.
I wonder what the reaction could be, if a non US company tried to circumvent local and federal regulations in the US, or actively solicited illegal behaviour by their US users.
TL:DR - I'm getting mine, fuck everyone else.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
It will be interesting to see how the US government responds to a South Korean request for extradition of Uber corporate officers for conspiracy to break the law.
Um, Tokyo taxis don't know where they are going eh? You don't live here, and likely didn't know how to ask where you wanted to go.
TL:DR - I have schizophrenia
FTFY
In most jurisdictions the difference between "taxi" and "Private hire" is huge. taxis can pick up anywhere, and are often obligated to pick up when hailed. Private hire must be ordered in advance, don't need to be marked, and often have much less stringent barriers to entry to the market in return for a lack of obligation to pick up fares whenever hailed on the street.
Uber is not a taxi service, by any stretch of the imagination. Taxi drivers shouldn't be rallying against this. Uber is, and should be regulated as, a private hire service. In every case a reservation is made. Be it 10 minutes before departure... it's still pre-booked.
In London I don't know the licencing requirements for private hire but I believe Uber drivers are licensed as such, they are NOT taxi drivers which is why they usually don't know where the fuck they are or where they're going, let alone the route between. In Tokyo they are licenced as private hire and they are extremely polite but travel a very small sector of the city. In Hong Kong they are licensed as private hire and are clean, polite, and have nice cars. They are also quite a lot more expensive than the ubiquitous taxis, for the privilege.
I'm bewildered by this culture of unlicenced ride-sharing I hear so much about. I've never experienced it, the closest I ever came was grabbing a bootleg taxi in NY 10 years ago. Dude had a sweet Lincoln and introduced me to Albert King. Best 20 bucks I ever spent.
People don't use Uber because of its internal business plan, they use it because they can pull out their phone, open an app, and get a car within a few minutes: Its super fucking easy.
Instead of legislating away the competition, Taxis should compete and get in to the fucking 21st century with their own Apps. Capitalism is about meeting market demand, and right now the market is demanding an easy way to hail a cab instead of standing in the gutter with your arm stretched out.
Now, every Taxi company having its own App would be ridiculous, and many couldn't afford their own I bet. But if a software company or two were to pop up that offered an App with Uber-like functionality, that let Taxi companies (and only licensed, registered Taxi companies/drivers) sign up to be used in the App - a digital, mobile, taxi market place - I think thank Software company might be able to make quite a bit of money.
Uber tells drivers which passengers they may pick up. They restrict what model of car drivers can use. Drivers have freedom of action to choose which passenger to pick up, but are not allowed to pick up non-Uber passengers. Uber controls virtually all of the details of how the service is performed, how feedback is provided; drivers are obligated to comply with Uber's regulations or risk termination. Uber's drivers are employees, by the letter and the spirit of the law. Why the IRS can't enforce this shit is beyond me.
"disruption" means breaking the oligopoly that naturally forms in a non-competitive anti-capitalistic market. In some places the oligopoly members fought to get their olgopoly or monopoly enshrined in law, so yes, that requires a little civil disobedience in some markets.
Learn to love Alaska
At what point can the South Korean's order the FBI to raid the Uber offices with a SWAT team?
Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody is forcing people to use Uber right?
And the Uber drivers are getting compensated fairy? (otherwise I would assume they would find employment elsewhere).
Simple supply and demand. When the demand gets high enough usually the laws change.
Just because something is Law by no means makes it just, right, or logical.
Look up Flywheel.com. It is the defacto Taxi dispatch app in San Francisco now.
That would make sense if it was big companies who use that word, but it isn't.
Yes, that's the kind of sociopathy I am talking about, thanks for the example.
Yes, that's the kind of sociopathy I was talking about, thanks for the example.