Slashdot Mirror
Uber Raided By Dutch Authorities, Seen As 'Criminal Organization'
An anonymous reader writes: Uber offices in Amsterdam have been raided by Dutch authorities, as reported by several local media sources (Google translation of original in Dutch). This follows intimidatory deterrence practices earlier in The Netherlands, with Uber drivers being fined in the past months, and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice). Time for tech companies to consider moving their European offices elsewhere?
Uber's lawyers must be incredibly busy. Proposed regulations in London would effectively end the company's service there, while the mayor of Rio de Janeiro said he would ban Uber's operations outright. They're receiving mixed messages from Australia — just a day after running afoul of regulations in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory is moving to legalize it.
In an attempt to cut through the bullshit of what *might* happen and work directly from evidence, I came across a report of a Cato institute study:
A Cato Institute study shows key differences between rideshare services and taxis, but passenger safety isn't one of them.
The other differences are not as important and will probably get solved by other means. For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.
The economists here are quick to point out the importance of liquidity, and Uber adds much needed liquidity to the taxi system.
Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?
Ueber likes to promote itself as a happy camper ride along service, but is morphing more and more into a global taxi sweatshop.
No longer is it just take on somebody for a ride, but exploiting legal loopholes to employ taxi drivers without any benefits, dodging taxes etc, and keep full control over them.
Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.
As a cyclist in London I've been having a lot of trouble recently with bad drivers all in Toyota Priuses with mobile phones on their dashboards. Simply coincidence that this has happened and got worse with the rise in popularity of Uber? These drivers are worse than the dickheads in the black Addison Lee vans. I'm all for some government regulation and taxation for these arseholes.
COMPANIES have no right to commit civil disobedience, only individuals can do that. For a company that just makes them a criminal organization.
that is a fallacious argument. You have incorrectly associated an individuals right to civil disobedience with the rights of a company. A company is not a citizen and as such it cannot commit civil disobedience. The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.
Hmm...
So by that logic, the New York Times shouldn't have published the Pentagon Papers, and the Guardian shouldn't have published Edward Snowden's revelations.
Both of which were classified at the time.
Maybe in your area, but that's not my experience. Their prices and availability are so random that it's not reasonable to make plans around them. I can imagine how much worse they'd get if they didn't have to compete with regular taxi and private hire car firms.
and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)
Nice one there.
Get the anti-gubermint crowd by emphasizing the criminal organization definition of Uber.
(YEAH! Fuck you Holland and your German laws! You don't get to decide what constitutes a legal definition of a criminal organization in your country!).
Then get the pro-regulation crowd by insinuating that paying taxes, tariffs etc. and submitting to regulation is somehow just a legal racket by "the authorities".
(YEAH! Fuck you regulatory gubermint bodies! I WANT to live in a Blade Runner-like dystopia. Minus the tech, replicants, flying cars, Vangelis soundtrack and unicorns.)
It's almost as if both the "anonymous reader" and Soulskill love watching their mom being double-teamed so much they just can't get the idea of getting it both ways out of their head.
What? It's a flamebait story and topic.
Decorum and protocol dictate the mention of management's and submitters Nazi whore mothers.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
We've all been through it - can't get a cab. It's sometime AM, you need a cab and the driver refuses to take you. From my understanding of 'Common Carrier' law it is illegal for them to refuse a fare, just as much as it is illegal for Uber to operate.
Taxi operations are used to having all of the power and now that Uber has come along (despite some minor reservations I have with the service) I'm glad they are kicking the Taxi industries ass. I've noticed that now Taxis have improved their service because Uber is here.
I suspect that once Uber is gone - Taxi services will become much worse. If Uber is going to be banned then I would like to see the penalties for the Taxi industry increase because if they did what they were supposed to do, then Uber would not exist.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yeah, fuck the government and their stupid rules. Let us have an Anarchy and let the Fittest Survive for the next 25 turns.
People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.
The solution is for proper taxi firms to use the same technology. It's not unusual for the established organisations to be slow off the mark on these things, and for an upstart new-entrant to make the running. If Uber was just adding tech to the business that would be great, but they also decided to break the regulations that are there for good reason. And why are they doing that? Not for anyone else's benefit. But because it's cheaper and easier for them to pretend the rules don't apply to them.
Uber cars ... don't try to cheat you at every step.
Right....
http://justanotherpointstravel...
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Problem with VW, is that it doesn't play by European rules either. No shiny knight BS here. It's going to get nailed for its shenanigans in Europe just as much as it will in US.
Here in Finland, customer protection laws are so strong that they may require VW to actually buy relevant cars back from customers if they cannot provide appropriate compensation.
Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.
Really? I don't believe this to be true, and your argument from this point on fails because of it. Everyone doesn't know that they are not getting the protection of a licensed taxi. Maybe they don't know anything about Uber other than it provides what they understand to be taxis. Maybe their friend ordered the car and they think they're getting in a taxi?
And there are many regulations that people are legally not allowed to "opt out" of. For instance, I'm sure that many would be happy to build their house without following building regulations. Much cheaper. But they're not given that option. Many would be happy to accept a supply of gas from an unregulated supplier. All those rules add to the cost, and if you're prepared to accept the risks why not? Except the law is sometimes there to protect people from their own folly.