Slashdot Mirror
City of Austin Locked In Regulations Battle With Uber, Lyft
AcidPenguin9873 writes: This past fall, the Austin City Council drafted regulations for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft requiring drivers to submit to fingerprint-based background checks, similar to other taxi services in Austin. Uber and Lyft threatened to leave the Austin market if the fingerprint-based background checks were passed. After lots of heated public comments and debate from both sides, the fingerprint requirements were passed by the council in December. Shortly thereafter, a PAC called Ridesharing Works for Austin was formed, and, with financial backing from Uber and Lyft, delivered a petition with over 25,000 valid signatures to the City that seeks to remove the fingerprint requirement. According to Austin city code, since the petition had enough valid signatures, the City Council was required to either adopt the language in the petition and remove the fingerprint requirement, or hold a referendum election on the issue. This past Thursday, the council declined to adopt the petition, so Austin voters will go to the polls in May to decide how Uber and Lyft should be regulated.
This case is quite interesting and raises a lot of questions. Uber and Lyft have said that their electronic tracking makes them safer than traditional taxi services, and so they shouldn't be subject to the same regulations. However, some citizens and council members don't like corporations strong-arming local government and effectively writing their own regulations. On the other, one of the council members who introduced the fingerprinting requirement had received campaign donations from at least one local taxi company, leading some to question her motives for introducing the stricter regulations for Uber and Lyft, and even going so far as to start a separate petition campaign to recall that council member. What does Slashdot think Austin should do?
This case is quite interesting and raises a lot of questions. Uber and Lyft have said that their electronic tracking makes them safer than traditional taxi services, and so they shouldn't be subject to the same regulations. However, some citizens and council members don't like corporations strong-arming local government and effectively writing their own regulations. On the other, one of the council members who introduced the fingerprinting requirement had received campaign donations from at least one local taxi company, leading some to question her motives for introducing the stricter regulations for Uber and Lyft, and even going so far as to start a separate petition campaign to recall that council member. What does Slashdot think Austin should do?
...special interests sending money to govt fighting in order to prevent true competition in industry, and squeeze out the new player in town.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Fingerprinting is a minor, one-time upfront cost, so it isn't an unreasonable regulation. This isn't like say forcing Uber and Lyft to obey specific payment rules, or requiring medallions that are restricted to a certain number. I'm not sure in general that such fingerprinting is a useful, cost-effective requirement for any taxi type, whether traditional or not, but it doesn't appear to be a rule that only makes sense if one is trying to harm Uber.
Uber and Lyft will need to make a hardline statement sooner or later.
They should just pull out and let the people's outcry (or lack of one) be heard.
The services are either too scared that their wouldn't be an outcry or they're just too greedy to give up revenue in one market.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
If the existing taxi drivers are required to have the fingerprints and background checks, Uber and Lyft drivers should have them, too.
If the existing taxi drivers are NOT required to have the checks, then making Uber and Lyft drivers do it is discriminatory.
Uber and Lyft are fucking taxi services, and they're doing their best to make a shitty job shittier.
i'm older than dirt but over the last 30 years there is a background check for everything and if you screwed up in youth it's virtually impossible to get a good job later in life. even lower end jobs for someone coming out of jail to earn a living WTF is someone supposed to do other than go back to jail?
But... but... but... that's the libertarian paradise that's always been dreamt of, no? The Dagney Tagger Dollar Sign, ruling over (erasing really) any concept of 'we the People'?
sPh
An article came out this weekend in Austin that shows the city only requires taxi background checks in one state, Texas, unless the driver lived somewhere else in the last 3 years in which case that state is also checked. Uber and Lyft look at all 50 states. Also, the city does not restrict convicted murderers or sex offenders from getting a taxi license while Uber and Lyft do:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/austin-screening-of-taxi-drivers-far-from-airtight/nqPwW/
8 taxi drivers were accused of sexual assault in 2014 in Austin. The data does not show that fingerprinting is effective and in many cases leads to false positives and false negatives. This isn't about a level playing field as that article shows the taxi industry background checks in Austin are much less comprehensive than Uber and Lyft.
We don't really know what would be a red flag here though. I mean, if you used to drive a cab and robbed & raped passengers seems reasonable you wouldn't be allowed to drive again.
Can we please not have a /. story every time Uber farts? None of these stories are 'news for nerds', and I really don't come here to read about taxi regulations and the inevitable flamewars thereabouts.
I think the question is more about what is better? Some would say that the "big-brother" monitoring and tracking of TNCs deters more bad-actors (on both driver and passenger side) than a one-time fingerprint check. Does anyone have any data showing that background checks have prevented people from driving? Or is there a correlation between people with "records" driving with TNCs and committing assaults? Are people debating universal finger-printing as a measure to "make things more safe" or just a "Taxi's have to do it, so everyone else should bear the same economic barrier to entry" argument? If GPS tracking and profiles are more safe, then the taxi industry should adopt that and drop the fingerprinting. An interesting thing about the political process is that the drivers and companies have to deal with the TNCs' technological and social media advantage. I have seen it many times: TNC's can easily accelerate the political process because they have their customers' email addresses. They can get petitions signed much more easily. Cab Companies and Taxi drivers do not have this option. This fact alone has distorted what city councils across America see, TNCs can get their customers to click a few buttons to complain with an email blast or social media post, while taxi companies have a much harder time getting petitions signed. I'm not saying this is "unfair" but more that it's a structural reality in the current TNC vs. Taxi industry conflict.
The primary objective with a background check is to determine honesty. If you messed up as a kid, admit it, claim to regret your mistake, and let them see in the background check that it was a single offense and not entirely relevant to the job description you are applying for. If you try to hide it, they will find out and use it against you. If you are applying to a job where your prior conviction is relevant (child sex offender applying at a school for example), you are in the wrong place and they have every reason to bin your resume immediately.
The more relevant problem is that in the current situation, there are 5 equally capable applicants without a criminal history for every guy trying to turn his life around. Most companies are looking for excuses to narrow down their applicant list, instead of desperately looking for qualified candidates (and the ones who claim to have trouble finding qualified candidates achieve that with extremely specific and improbable requirements).
Pretty obvious, let the people of Austin decide, and if Uber doesn't like the results, screw 'em. Some local guy can start up a similar service.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think the idea of Uber & Lyft are great- but I really wish they would stop calling it "Ride Sharing" as it totally misrepresents what it is. It's selling! Sharing implies "I was going in the same direction, and I could give you a ride, and I'll split the cost with you." Of course this is what Uber and Lyft want people to think they do.
So I have no idea how these things work in the US. But it seems reasonable to run a background check and then decide based on the outcome of that check, eventually talking again with the prospective employee.
Now if the decision is made automatically "there is something in your criminal record => sorry" then it is ridiculous. But "You drove drunk and cause 10 people to die => sorry you won't drive my taxi" seems fine; while "You peed at 3am => no taxi" is unreasonable.
The only violence I've seen regarding Uber and Lyft is from out of control passengers.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What they really need to do is buy off the regulators (they have more money than taxi companies do now) and make the regulations require *taxi* drivers to have an app available like Uber and Lyft where customers can give real feedback from a smart phone. That is a regulation that makes sense, and actually has a chance at protecting passengers better.
I say play the regulation game, but force taxis to change. There's no legitimate excuse for taxi companies to not have "apps" at this point, and no legitimate excuse for them to not make rating drivers easy.
And, yes, I know, "small companies". But it would be easy for someone to come up with an app that could be shared by smaller companies.
Do you have ESP?
False positives? You're saying that taxi drivers appear to have the fingerprints of convicted felons, but actually are not these people?
Fingerprint matching is inexact. If I took your prints and searched the nationwide fingerprint databases, I would get a few hundred matches. Human examination of these matches would exclude most of them, analysis of the metadata, comparing your life history against the lives of the matchees would likely exclude the rest (assuming one of them wasn't actually you). But not always. False positives definitely do happen.
That would overturn the criminal justice system as we know it....
The criminal justice system's over-reliance on fingerprint identification is a problem. http://www.livescience.com/934...
Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built. Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress. It is our express duty to educate them so they know that the Technology/Share Economy is here and is here to stay. People know and the politicians they elect will soon learn that bureaucratic walls to the TehcnologyShare Economy will be torn down as surely as the Berlin Wall was. Using technology to utilize inactive resources is too easy and so welcomed it won't fail.
Not really. The idea behind some regulations is in fact to promote a level playing field. Remember that restrictions that are lifted from "Transit Companies" like Lyft and Uber are also lifted from the next guy to come along, even though they're policies don't necessarily match. Or Uber will run low on drivers and drop some of their policies, because there's not any kind of legal requirement for them not to.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Austin is a city. I say let Austin do what's right for Austin. They have a system to elect their council and a system to refer disagreements to the voters. That system is at work here.
I live a few hours from Austin. My (much larger) city has certain regulations on who's allowed to drive, too. It's a minor inconvenience to start driving and again every two years. It involves a background check including fingerprinting, a five-panel drug screening, a warrant check, and a vehicle inspection (including having a fire extinguisher within arm's reach of the driver). It's much, much less restrictive than being licensed to be a Houston taxi driver. From the link:
I'm not familiar with the exact regulations for a taxi driver in Austin, but I'd bet Uber and Lyft are complaining about their drivers only having to do part of what's required for a taxi driver there.
Let Austin worry about it. It's Austin's regulation for Austin's people. Now that it's going to a referendum the truest form of democracy you're likely to see on such a scale will take care of it in a locally agreeable way.
motion picture projectionist where union and there is safety issues like the xenon arc bulbs require special safety precautions.
With cabs there is insurance issues.
Don't expect the Austin City COuncil to abide by the election results. the have a history of ignoring the voters and doing what they want through other, more expensive means.
Don't be fooled.This is not about Safety. It's about control and city revenue. What the story doesn't mention (ir buries deeply) is that with this regulation, the city wanted 1% of revenues to supposedly pay or the finger printing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
what is you just got out on you 4th DUI? you want your cabby to have rap sheet filled with driving you?
Where? Over there?
Don't give Uber what it wants. Not because it's Uber (which would be a good enough reason in itself), but because history has shown whenever governmental entities deal with corporate entities, the corporation usually comes out on top. It's not that government is stupid - it's just that corporations have a lot more time to concentrate on how to take advantage than government does.
That is all.
Uber/Lyft have very little to do with tech (but they have SERVERS!) and the whole gig economy which they represent is poison to tech workers. Piss on them. As for Austin, they should - and will - do what's right for them without giving a rat's ass about what slashdot thinks.
So we've got some politicians in the pocket of one camp, and others in the pocket of a different camp. The law is written so that when there is sufficient public interest, the issue goes to a vote, providing a timely and final route forward.
Is that a problem?
If you have a solid case that it is ineffective and you care that much, then get off your ass and get the requirement removed. Otherwise, don't expect anything to happen if you're too lazy to go through the correct process.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If anyone doesn't like the way government operates, they have a full right and duty to engage in the process and change things. Let Uber change the rules unilaterally and not only are you decreasing the investment made by taxi drivers in their trade, but you also have to let any company change the rules as they see fit. Now you have builders who can use substandard materials and you get building collapses like they do in India. Now the companies trying to sell you v1agr4 have a legal right to operate. Good luck with that world.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In California (not sure about the rest of the country), you cannot perform a background check on someone until their first day of work, and you can only discriminate based on offenses that would be relevant to the job. It isn't perfect, but it at least provides a fairly high barrier.
But what's the harm in checking the driver's fingerprints to see if he's a rapist or a mugger?
I totally agree.
We should also check everyone who goes to a restaurant, theater, sporting event, or mens clothing store.
Uber needs your credit card to work, my advice is too let the local governments tell Uber how it's going to be, because if Uber makes the decisions you have no say.
You may wind up with a corporation dictating law and in possession of your credit card and little you can do about any problems that may arise.
If you read how Uber has pushed out its business ideas to other nations it is very like shoving a wad of paper down someone’s throat.
Be cautious, Uber is not a friendly corp.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Fingerprinting is a minor, one-time upfront cost, so it isn't an unreasonable regulation.
The cost is hidden.
Unless they destroy the collected fingerprints when the answer is "no", instead of databasing them.
Otherwise, they should just do a DNA swab, and compare it to both solved and unsolved cases, right?
Uber and Lyft are fucking taxi services
Good. Someone *SHOULD* fuck taxi services.
So I have no idea how these things work in the US.
Is this because you live in a European country with a "right to be forgotten"?
Sad that this post languishes at 0 and a post from blatant Taxi shills and Government apologists currently enjoy a 5.
Not really. Most moderators do not moderate AC's, unless it's to moderate them as trolls, since there is no accountability or long term effect from statements, nor is it possible to determine if this is ones firmly held position, by examining posting history, vs. "just a troll". So ACs are less likely to be moderated up.
Here is the "Adam Ruins Everything" episode where he talks about fingerprints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... As I recall, there was a case where someone committed a crime in Spain, and an American who'd never been there was arrested for it, based solely on his fingerprints.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Both the local taxi companies and Uber/Lyft are special interests. If the fingerprinting requirement existed before Uber/Lyft entered the market then they need to abide by it. Just because "new" doesn't mean they get to play by a different set of rules.
I grew up in France. I have been in the US since 2009. I have not caught up on all aspects of the US society yet.
To pick a nit, the medallion market is a government run monopoly, but the taxi market is not. Some sort of medallion system is necessary; the system will only begin to self-correct for traffic congestion at the point where it becomes uneconomical to sit in traffic. If your fare is paying per minute as well as per mile, this may never happen, and even if that is not the case, an idling car uses very little gasoline.
The situation in Panama City is the end-game for Uber. Anyone can drive a taxi, for a modest license fee. The fares are very low and taxicabs are plentiful. So how do you make money? You skimp on maintenance and insurance, jack up your prices for anyone you don't like, and if the person wants to go somewhere congested, either charge them and only take them a couple blocks, or just refuse service entirely. Also, because of the iron laws of competition, the price of the service is going to be driven down to the lowest amount that will keep the car and driver on the road. If you want to introduce this to America, keep in mind that it's not going to be Uber's fault if their drivers don't make minimum wage and congestion goes wild.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Not really. Most moderators do not moderate AC's, unless it's to moderate them as trolls, since there is no accountability or long term effect from statements, nor is it possible to determine if this is ones firmly held position, by examining posting history, vs. "just a troll". So ACs are less likely to be moderated up.
Rubbish. Moderation is supposed to rate the quality of the post, not the community's views of the user. I haven't looked at the precise moderation guidelines of late, but for years Malda encouraged moderators to read at -1 specifically for the purpose of stopping abuses and modding up low rated posts. What you're describing is an abuse of moderation.
There isn't much accountability for most logged-in users. If you give out your real name or otherwise indicate your identity, there might be. But there's no real accountability for someone posting as "tlambert." Sure, there's accountability in karma and the friends/foes system, but all that is meaningless off this site. It's easy enough just to create a new account and start over.
One of the reasons I post mostly as AC is because of moderation abuses. People use -1 overrated to get rid of opinions they disagree with and users they don't like. Take the user mi as an example. I think he's a right wing nutjob, but his opinions are clearly sincere. For a long time his karma was excellent as evidenced by his use of the karma bonus modifier. However, I see that he was modbombed a couple of weeks ago and many of those moderations were -1 overrated. Those don't show up in metamoderation, so the moderator is able to push an agenda with impunity. Posting as AC protects me from these abuses. While you can mod a single post down to -1, you can't so easily punish me beyond that. The user I cited now posts at -1, limiting him to two posts per day. He may well have received a temporary IP or subnet ban when the modbombing happened. The moderator isn't accountable but the user gets censored.
What you're supporting is completely contrary to the intent of Slashdot's moderation. I've seen all too many times when a post without much substance but that goes along with the prevailing opinion gets modded to +5 insightful or something like that. Meanwhile, a well thought out post that disagrees seems to have a good chance of ending up at -1 troll or -1 flamebait.
8 taxi drivers were accused of sexual assault in 2014 in Austin. The data does not show that fingerprinting is effective
Do you work for Uber, or is it Lyft?
How many taxi drivers were found guilty of sexual assault? What's rate of conviction for sexual assault for taxi drivers in Austin relative to the population as a whole? Now adjust for age, sex and income level, what's the relative rate?
Then come back and talk about the effectiveness of fingerprinting, because right now you're parroting spurious irrelevant and misleading statistics.
Not in the city where I most often take a taxi, Chicago. There, the number of medallions is regulated by the government, but once issued (for a relatively modest fee), they can be bought and sold by private interests in a free market, not a government-run market. (YMMV)
The primary objective with a background check is to determine honesty
I know first hand about this. I have a misdemeanor on my record but, at the time, I didn't realize it was classified as such. I filled out a job application where they asked if I had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor. I said no.
I was offered the job and even got my first paycheck before the background check completed and they withdrew the job offer because I had lied.
I made very certain to be upfront about this in all future job dealings and it has never been a problem since.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
What you're supporting is completely contrary to the intent of Slashdot's moderation.
I'm not supporting it, I'm just stating facts.
My personally belief is that a lot of AC's post trolls simply to try to force Slashdot to adopt a system without the ability to post anonymous comments. I will leave it to the tinfoil hat crowd to pick their favorite bogeyman du jour (NSA, ISIS, RIAA, ambulance chasers, SJW's Gamergater's, etc.), but I suspect that there is a hard drive to try and eliminate Internet anonymity as much as possible.
I personally read at -1 when I get mod points, and generally read at 0 otherwise, unless something's getting too noisy, and the liberals and conservatives are going at each other by restating talking points so repetitively that it drowns out content.
In point of fact, while Rob Malda did encourage moderators reading at -1, it is not a requirement -- nor should it be.
Your posting history is, to me, very valuable in determining whether or not you are honestly holding a point of view, or whether you are trolling. You friend "mi" is a great example of this: if I think something might be a troll, I check the posting history. Someone with what appears to be an honest but contrary opinion is more likely to get moderated up by me, whereas an AC posting the same thing, particularly if it contains inflammatory rhetoric, is more likely to be moderated down.
Yes, this means I down-mod AC's more than I do right (or left) wing nut-jobs.
The GGGP's posting is "languishing" because they made valid points below the level at which some moderators read, and if they had posted with a default Score of 1, those moderators might very well have up-modded it. So, I would say that it no so much "languishing" as it is "hiding from moderators sick of blatant racism, cow, and hosts file trolls".
It's a choice. On the part of the poster.
And the end result is they are almost all controlled by a small group of connected insiders, none of which actually drive a cab themselves. This is why cab customers pay high fares while drivers make next to nothing. Fuck the Cab Mafia.
We're talking about past actions and how they affect someones employment possibilities... If you want to talk about active drivers, there have been rapes by Uber drivers. (Of course there have been some by cab drivers too)
Obviously not, but I wouldn't be worried by a shoplifting incident years ago.
Two comments:
First, Uber spent money to force an election but the city must fund the election, one with only one subject on the ballot, the Uber-fingerprinting issue. The total cost to the city will be hundereds of thousands of dollars. Uber got the signatures to put it on the ballot by having the paid signature-gatherers lie- "The city of Austin is forcing Uber to close down; do you want to stop this?". The mayor tried to come up with a face-saving compromise; Uber said "no". I'll vote against Uber. And remember, there is an alternative start-up in the wings that will accept fingerprinting. I'll bet Uber backs down at the last minute to avoid allowing a new competitor to start us.
Many of the Uber drivers are not legal (immigrants without papers, student visas that don't allow work, people with suspended licences using other people's names, etc) and Uber doesn't want this sort of thing stopped.
This isn't really the same argument. I'm claiming that, if taxi drivers need background checks, Uber and Lyft drivers should need the same. It may be that we should dump background checks for ever commercial driver, but that isn't what Uber and Lyft are trying to do.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A right to be forgotten is valuable. Lots of people do stupid and illegal things when they're young, and we're all better off if they can get decent jobs when they've wised up and are trying to go legit.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes