Uber Has Been Using a Secretive Program To Identify Enforcement Officers And Prevent Them From Hailing Cars (nytimes.com)

Uber has been using a secretive program to evade authorities for years, particularly at times when city regulators were trying to block the ride-hailing service, according to a new report by the New York Times. From the report: Uber is using a tool called "Greyball" to work identify requests made by certain users and deny them service, according to the report. The application, later renamed the "violation of terms of service" or VTOS program, is said to employ data analysis on info collected by the Uber app to identify individuals violating Uber's terms of service, and blocks riders from being able to hail rides who fall into that category -- including, according to the report, members of code enforcement authorities or city officials who are attempting to gather data about Uber offering service where it's currently prohibited. The report claims that that Uber's "violation of terms of service" or VTOS program, briefly known as Greyball, began around 2014, and has sign-off from Uber's legal team.In a statement, Uber said, "This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service -- whether that's people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret 'stings' meant to entrap drivers."

Journalists, putting things in context. Russell Brandom, a reporter at The Verge said, This is the kind of thing a DA would put in front of a judge if they wanted to subpoena Uber's business records for an entire city. Matt Rosoff, editorial director at CNBC Digital added, I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now.

Comments

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber just went up a couple notches in my book!

Re:Excellent

[Raisey-raison]

Uber just went up a couple notches in my book!

I completely agree. The whole Greyball program is a feature not a bug. Without an aggressive company the monopoly of taxis in so many cities would never have been broken. The law is on the side of lobbyists who are paid by incumbents to prevent competition. I can't tell you how many times I tried to hail a cab in NYC before Uber and simply could not get one. I have similarly been unable to get a cab without 24 hours notice sometimes in the suburbs. The artificial shortage of taxis in NYC is what economics textbooks use to explain economic rent! It's outrageous that people complain about Uber busting up a deeply unfair system full of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

haha!

Re:Excellent

[Applehu Akbar]

Uber just went up a couple notches in my book!

My sentiment also. In particular, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission operates its own police force to prevent entrepreneurs from competing with medallion cabs. It has been known to arrest people who drop off their spouses at JFK or LaGuardia, accusing them of operating a taxi service. Victims have to hire expensive legal help to prove their innocence.

I hope Uber mashes these bastards straight into the ground.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

haha

Re: Excellent

[PoopJuggler]

It's outrageous that people complain about Uber busting up a deeply unfair system full of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations.

Nobody's complaining about that. What makes Uber suck is that they're no better morally, ethically or economically than the scum in the taxi industry. They're just as predatory and evil.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No they fucking aren't. I can get a ride with uber at half the price or less.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

My sentiment also. In particular, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission operates its own police force to prevent entrepreneurs from competing with medallion cabs. It has been known to arrest people who drop off their spouses at JFK or LaGuardia, accusing them of operating a taxi service.

The above sounds like a thinly disguised protection racket the Mafia would use.

How sure are you that this shit is NOT Mafia-backed ?

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No they fucking aren't. I can get a ride with uber at half the price or less.

They aren't evil because they are cheaper?
Is this a massive swoosh that I somehow don't get, or are you serious?

Re: Excellent

[Demena]

That will not continue. They are attempting monopoly. When they achieve it they will exploit it.

For me being in a taxi means that if there is an accident I am covered every way from Sunday. Regardless of who is at fault, regardless of medical insurance status, irregardless I will be covered and compensated for losses. If I travel in a Uber car, a paying fare, I am not covered at all, not even by the local mandatory third party insurance. A potential disaster.

Calling and using a cab provides limited information to the cab company. Using Uber reports my location (and god knows what else) to Uber 24/7 and I am even paying for the electricity and hardware to do it. While the cops may get such records form the phone company, Uber just demanding, taking them is an insult. Why would anyone sane accept those terms of service?

The intent of Uber is a world wide (or as wide as they can get) monopoly. Its business model is a losing proposition at its current pricing rates. When other alternatives (some better, some worse) have been wiped out it will exploit that monopoly and not only price wise. It will have the capacity to make areas popular or unpopular and all the influence that comes with that.

They are not even subtle about it. You know what "uber" means don't you? Google übermensch and uber alles.

Re: Excellent

[mea_culpa]

If I travel in a Uber car, a paying fare, I am not covered at all, not even by the local mandatory third party insurance. A potential disaster.

Uber does carry insurance for passengers covering them as you say every way from Sunday. It even goes further by offering unlimited coverage for injuries or death.

I'm no fan of Uber, I think their corporate culture sucks. But they have covered their asses very well as far as insurance for passengers is concerned. They don't give two shits about their drivers though.

Re: Excellent

[Demena]

Locally I had heard otherwise and it may differ here. A private vehicle and a car for hire are different registration requirements. One is private and one is commercial. And never the twain shall meet. The cost of registration and the cost (and terms) of the mandatory third party insurance differ. In law. I don't think Uber can change that.

They do not give two shits about their passengers either. I do not think their driver requirements are anything like stringent enough.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, as opposed to the NYC taxi service, which is DEFINITELY organized crime?

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No they fucking aren't. I can get a ride with uber at half the price or less.

Except when they do price sourge, then you're fucked.
For all the shit the taxi industry gets, one thing it does get right is price. You know exactly what the run is going to cost independently of external circumstances. Not so with Uber.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, besides that problem, they do not carry coverage for third parties. So if you hire uber and they kill someone, you can be held liable to that victims family.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes we're so eager to replace something bad which doesn't serve us properly with something else that serves us better that we don't stop to think if it might bite us worse down the road. Fellow peasants, it might be better if we use our pitchforks and defend ourselves than expect the king of the land to send his knights to save us. Because not only he might expect more taxes from us but one fine day he might not protect our interests if he happens to wake up from the wrong side of the bed.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No you can't. Passengers would never be liable. Unless they distracted the driver and caused the accident. But in normal situations, they would never be liable.

Re: Excellent

[SethJohnson]

No they fucking aren't. I can get a ride with uber at half the price or less.

Those rides are subsidized by venture capital money. They're not profitable in how they are operating. They've lost billions of dollars. Enjoy your half-price rides while you can. Once they succeed at starving off the taxi industry, they expect to hold a monopoly over the transportation service market, at which point you will pay way higher fees. Somebody will have to compensate these venture capitalists for all the billions they've lost so far. Sounds like you are their intended target.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh he wasn't responding to only a part of "Uber suck is that they're no better morally, ethically or economically than the scum in the taxi industry" But the whole thing. Because Uber IS better economically at least.

And yes if you can get a uber within 5minutes, and the car is new, comfortable, the driver doesn't smell, and drives you directly to your destination while you can charge your phone and get a free water/candy at half the price while listening to your own music. It is certainly nicer/better for passenger, compared to the shit cabs I used to get in NYC, driving long way to make extra, bitching about paying not in cash, or dealing with smelling like a hobo driver and/or non working AC.

And competition is good. If you prefer taxi's by all means, you can continue to use them.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

You're liable if the judge/jury/arbitrator says you are. Even if you're not, that's not to say you're not going to get sued and spend a fortune on legal fees to prove it.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I can't stand Uber. Their lack of a politically correct culture endears them to me somewhat, but as a rule I think their corporate leadership are slime.

In this case though they have the right idea. Identifying and shunning people who enforce laws that people clearly don't want is a good idea that should be practiced more regularly in our society.

Re:Excellent

[BadTuna]

And pure as the driven snow Uber will banish the evil Taxi commission to Purgatory. And the world will be a better place?

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet America you're guilty until proven innocent! And even then, you're probably still guilty.

Re:Excellent

[Applehu Akbar]

If users perceive Uber to be mistreating its drivers or in some other way being a bad actor, they can use Lyft instead. If users object to a city's single and protected medallion cab service, they can go to hell.

Re:Excellent

[fred6666]

. Without an aggressive company the monopoly of taxis in so many cities would never have been broken.

what monopoly? In most cities there are at least 4-5 taxi companies.
If Uber wins, however, then you will see what it is to have a monopoly.

Re: Excellent

[I75BJC]

"For me being in a taxi means that if there is an accident I am covered every way from Sunday. " Only if you include the possibility of law suits, sharing settlements with attorneys, funds running out while the physical damage is still present. Neither taxi companies nor insurance companies have a vested interest in paying your claims and expenses without contesting them. and that's only if the taxi company is actually insured at the time you are damaged. If there is a one second gap, you are on your own -- for the whole tab if you don't have your own insurance. What a crock to assume you are "protected".

Re:Excellent

[Raisey-raison]

. Without an aggressive company the monopoly of taxis in so many cities would never have been broken.

what monopoly? In most cities there are at least 4-5 taxi companies. If Uber wins, however, then you will see what it is to have a monopoly.

I am referring to the instances where Uber skirted regulations that made it impossible to legally offer it's service. Had it asked for permission initially it would have simply been refused. Once the drivers and general public got used to the servuce, municipalities were forced to compromise.

Second, it's simply untrue to say the before Uber there were lots of can companies offering sufficient services. I have tried in many instances to obtain a ride in the past from them and have been turned down. Some of them are very rude and gruff. Some suburbs have only two functional services and you have to pay a significant surcharge to get a cab from somewhere else along with a significant delay. Sometimes they don't even answer their own phone! Uber cars don't stink and their drivers generally don't smoke. Taxi cabs drivers love to smoke and I personally find being around cigarette smoke to be repulsive. The health hazards from second hand smoke are huge and yet somehow municipalities don't care about that and if would complained the driver would screw with me.

Third, taxi medallions are not going nowhere, they are just worth less and of municipalities want they can increase the supply to increase competition. They are the only vehicle that can be hailed from the street. Although cities stupidly don't increase the supply because the owners of the medallions are big campaign contributers in local elections. And Lyft is still around. And Uber has been lowering prices because previously prices were too high even to maximize profits under an app based monopoly - where price elasticity equals one. Fourth, no one complained about the previous system. It sucked! It was deeply corrupt. And getting a ride was hard. Uber means you can go from having a two to a one car household and not be worried about getting a cab. It means you know what you will pay and not to have to worry about taxis breaking the law. I have seen taxis press the wrong rate button when I have exited the airport because they thought I was a tourist or refuse to use the meter and then make up a fair. But the law was not enforced.

I asked my economics professor that given that this was such a huge problem, why would we not do something about it. They answered "politics". Somehow now that Uber is disrupting the industry everyone cares. Well were you all 8 years ago. Why when people like me complained, was I told "it is what it is? Why are you being so selective about whom you criticize for doing something wrong???

Re:Excellent

[yoshi_mon]

- My sentiment also. In particular, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission operates its own illegal "police force" to prevent entrepreneurs from competing with medallion cabs. It has been known to illegally kidnap people who drop off their spouses at JFK or LaGuardia, accusing them of operating a taxi service.

Note my corrections. You are going to have to cite some serious evidence of your claims because your tinfoil hat...or Uber shilling...post is pretty outlandish.

Re:Excellent

[fred6666]

Second, it's simply untrue to say the before Uber there were lots of can companies offering sufficient services. I have tried in many instances to obtain a ride in the past from them and have been turned down. Some of them are very rude and gruff. Some suburbs have only two functional services and you have to pay a significant surcharge to get a cab from somewhere else along with a significant delay. Sometimes they don't even answer their own phone

All that is much, much worse with Uber. They have a territory and won't pick you up if you are not in the territory, no matter how much you are willing to pay. In many cities the territory is not very large.
My experience with regular taxi companies is that while you may have to wait, you will always end up having a driver. With Uber, even if there are drivers available in my city, they might not be close enough to me so I just can't order service, again no matter how much I am willing to pay.

Re:Excellent

[Applehu Akbar]

Your fake bolded insertions would make my real story into a fake story.

The TLC police force is totally legal in NYC, and operates as a special-purpose police force for taxi regulations. It has a long history of thuggish abuse:
http://nypost.com/2014/11/27/d...
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-yo...

The second link contains additional citations of its own.

Re: Excellent

[gravewax]

It is actually even worse then that, in breaking up the cartels and incompetent taxi industries they have gotten rid of many of the regulations and that were put in place to try and protect consumers. So now we have an equally corrupt and morally bankrupt lot but no oversight or protection from their behaviour.

Re: Excellent

[Demena]

What a crock to assume I live under cruddy legislation. Well, I do, but not in this matter. If I am injured on Australian roads I am covered. All the time.

Re:Excellent

[tehcyder]

. Without an aggressive company the monopoly of taxis in so many cities would never have been broken.

what monopoly? In most cities there are at least 4-5 taxi companies. If Uber wins, however, then you will see what it is to have a monopoly.

The party line on slashdot is that ALL the taxis in the whole WORLD are put of some giant cartel/conspiracy, in cahoots with EVIL government of course and probs the usual lizard-people-ZOG-Illuminati.

Re:Excellent

[tehcyder]

the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission operates its own police force to prevent entrepreneurs from competing with medallion cabs. It has been known to arrest people who drop off their spouses at JFK or LaGuardia, accusing them of operating a taxi service

Private police forces can't arrest people surely?

Or is the US really that odd?

Re:Excellent

[Cramer]

If these ride-sharing companies were actually running a ride SHARING business, then I might agree. But they aren't. They're simply a huge internet-app-powered unlicensed taxi service. And they fucking know it. They KNOW their drivers are just out driving around to pick up fares.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Subsidized by VC money. It's not sustainable at competitive full price.

Re: Excellent

[godel_56]

No they fucking aren't. I can get a ride with uber at half the price or less.

Those rides are subsidized by venture capital money. They're not profitable in how they are operating. They've lost billions of dollars. Enjoy your half-price rides while you can. Once they succeed at starving off the taxi industry, they expect to hold a monopoly over the transportation service market, at which point you will pay way higher fees. Somebody will have to compensate these venture capitalists for all the billions they've lost so far. Sounds like you are their intended target.

And of course both Uber and Lyft are working on autonomous self-driving cars so that they can shaft their human drivers as soon as the tech becomes available, possibly in about 5 years.

Re: Excellent

[mlyle]

Yes, the driver's own ordinary insurance does not generally cover people they're carrying for hire.

The insurance that Uber has obtained for its drivers when "onlne" does.

https://www.uber.com/drive/ins...

Re:Excellent

[mlyle]

The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission is a government entity supervising taxis in New York City.

However, such entities are often subject to regulatory capture--- no one talks to them more than the taxicab companies, no one cares about what they do as much as taxicab companies, no one is as likely to be involved in the discussion as to who's appointed to the commission as taxicab companies. So it's not surprising that they to a large extent look out for existing taxicab companies' interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber drivers raped 19 girls in Florida this year. Most uber drivers cannot get approved by the county for a hackers license because of their criminal background. So they drive for uber, lyft, ect..

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

What if McDonald's suddenly had a chain of big burgers, that opened their doors next to all McDonald's all over the world. Pay their employees $3.00 an hour,make their employees buy their own cash registers,coffee pots ect...no commercial insurance, no building permits, no inspection ??????that's what uber is to cab druvers

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your ripping off the driver. If it cost you one dollar to fry the chicken why sellnit for fifty cents. Because you have your employees pay for the chicken and you take 25 cents. You have a million unsuspecting employees ya rich and their broke. Your employer doesn't ask you to work for three dollars an hour . slave driver

Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Their entire business model is based on violating laws so it makes sense they would build tools to make that as easy possible.

Re:Of course they do

[JoeyRox]

And the business model of Uber's entrenched competition is to pay off politicians to pass laws that unfairly protect their markets from upstarts like Uber. So one is engaging in blatant corporatism while the other is fighting it.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahah..... Do you seriously think Uber isn't greasing palms?

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahahah... They have to, dumbass, because that's exactly what the taxi cartels did.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

So one is engaging in blatant corruption while the other is fighting the rule of law.
FTFY

Both parties can be in the wrong, you know. The best outcome for the public would be that some regulatory framework would be put in place to protect Uber passengers:

sex offender drivers unable to pick up passengers of the violated sex for 5 years

no licenses for violent criminals for 5 years

passengers insured for liability like other taxi services are required to do

taxi service license costs to be in line with the cost to ensure compliance, and not as a revenue stream

services for women to request female drivers
Of course, this means that Uber prices will go up and the prices of other taxi services will come down which increases the competition and is a good thing in my opinion.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

And where there is no artificial scarcity of taxis (i.e. no entrenched competition), Uber still flouts the law and trots out the same crap.

They are lawless dweebs that think that by doing something on the internet or with an app makes it acceptable.

Re:Of course they do

[squiggleslash]

Oh bollocks. In the vast majority of cases, the laws that Uber violates existed long before the Internet was ever a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. They exist for the most part to ensure accountability (licensing), fair and predictable service (published fares), and, in some cases such as NYC's medallion system, to prevent already clogged streets from being clogged with more taxis.

Even those cities that passed rules Uber has problems with after Uber's creation did so because Uber was already causing problems with the above pre-existing frameworks.

WIth the exception of cities with quotas (like the medallion system in NYC) the laws in question didn't preclude competition. It was easy to start up a new taxi company - you just had to follow the rules, which weren't hard.

One can argue that the taxi system should have been modernized, but the argument that taxi regulations were created to protect taxis from Uber is utterly ridiculous.

Uber was violating perfectly reasonable laws that existed for perfectly reasonable reasons.

Re:Of course they do

[Uberbah]

And the business model of Uber's entrenched competition is to pay off politicians to pass laws that unfairly protect their markets from upstarts like Uber.

Oh, the horror of making drivers properly trained, licensed, compensated and insured. Instead we need a Ponzi scheme, except one doesn't make the first drivers rich, but merely dependent on a new crop of desperate suckers who will wear out their car for you before they figure out they'd make more money working the same number of hours as McDonalds.

dl;dr pound sand, corporatist apologist

Re: Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, you fucking shill.

Let me guess... You're a taxi driver, or are related to someone who is.

Only the immediate beneficiaries of the corruption that is the entrenched monopoly speak and believe as you do. Literally everyone else sees you for the greedy, evil piece of shit you are.

Re:Of course they do

[rtb61]

You kind of missed the bid where Uber was targeting people for denial of service attacks. Basically you would book and no one would turn up, hah hah. Uber goes Republican, watch out Democrats and vice versa depending upon which politician accepts there bribes. A public service can not target individuals for exclusion based upon arbitrary reasons.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

sex offender drivers unable to pick up passengers of the violated sex for 5 years

Right. Guy caught pissing in "public." Does that mean he can't pick up...? Who?

Re: Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the GP. I am not a taxi driver, related to one, or even know one. It is possible to have a differing opinion to yours without a vested interest.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Trees

Re:Of course they do

[JoeyRox]

Of course those laws existed long before Uber - they were originally passed to limit the supply of taxis by either placing artificial limits on the number taxis (medallions) or by creating licensing schemes to increase the barriers to entry. This scheme is repeated in many markets in the USA - look up the licensing and regulatory requirements for interstate trucking - those approach racketeering. Whenever a politician tells you he's endorsing regulations or licensing requirements for the public good or safety, grab your wallet.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it was done long time ago, before Uber existed.

Re:Of course they do

[drinkypoo]

So one is engaging in blatant corporatism while the other is fighting it.

No. They are both engaging in blatant corporatism. Uber is not doing this to benefit you. Now, I do think what Uber is doing can benefit you, but that is not why they are doing it. This is why I sometimes root for Uber. The entrenched taxi companies are shit, and taxi licensing in America accomplishes exactly zero of the things it claims to do. In other countries, I might feel differently. Literally the only other country I've taken a taxi in was Panama. The cars were dirtier and less safe than they are here in the states, probably in large part because cars are quite expensive there and therefore nontrivial to replace. If you have a good connection in customs you can bring in two cars a year, though, and sell them too, so I'm not sure why more American expats aren't going through some customs service and doing this, and making money solving that problem.

the business model of Uber's entrenched competition is to pay off politicians to pass laws that unfairly protect their markets from upstarts like Uber. So

...Uber is using similarly sneaky tactics to achieve a similar goal. They want to be the ones who own the self-driving cars that do the job the Uber drivers are doing now. They don't give a shit about people, they just want the power so they can get the money.

Re:Of course they do

[drinkypoo]

They exist for the most part to ensure accountability (licensing),

You mean to generate funds (licensing)? Because unless they actually get punished for things like just never showing up to pick up fares in certain neighborhoods, or refusing to go to certain neighborhoods, that doesn't assure accountability, but it does generate revenues.

fair and predictable service (published fares),

Who among us has not been overcharged by a taxi driver?

and, in some cases such as NYC's medallion system, to prevent already clogged streets from being clogged with more taxis.

Yay, price-fixing through protectionism!

Re: Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the Gulag and the coerced false confessions ("plea bargains") used to fill it have finally delegitimized DUH LAW in the eyes of the common people.

Re:Of course they do

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So get government out of rationing, to the greatest greaser of palms, the legal right to create a monopoly to sell you taxi service.

All Americans are free, which is supposed to mean, among other things, the right to sell their services to you.

These licenses and safety are red herrings for a limited licensing scheme. That is what must be destroyed.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

They exist for the most part to ensure accountability (licensing),

You mean to generate funds (licensing)? Because unless they actually get punished for things like just never showing up to pick up fares in certain neighborhoods, or refusing to go to certain neighborhoods, that doesn't assure accountability, but it does generate revenues.

That's actually one of the most important features of these rules.

fair and predictable service (published fares),

Who among us has not been overcharged by a taxi driver?

I haven't. Especially for things like airport trips, many (most?) cities have flat, published fares. That makes it very difficult to overcharge.

and, in some cases such as NYC's medallion system, to prevent already clogged streets from being clogged with more taxis.

Yay, price-fixing through protectionism!

There's a serious congestion problem here. There is essentially no more road capacity in New York than 100 years ago, cars aren't smaller, but the population is much larger. You want to limit low-density vehicles (single people driving, taxis, limos, whatever) as much as you possibly can in favor of higher-density transport (buses) and freight (trucks). It's nothing to do with taxi fares, but limiting the total number of taxis on the road in Manhattan is a good way to accomplish that.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahah..... Do you seriously think Uber isn't greasing palms?

Don't you mean "greasing poles"?

Given the way the UBER CEO acted on that video, I would not think UBER's unethical behaviors can be stopped by any laws. I present the following reports from many news outlets at proof: sexual harassment of women; flouting existing laws because they are "different" from traditional taxis; refusing to abide by London laws on English language proficiency; etc.

Does UBER's unethical behaviors have any bounds? Is UBER as bad as the "dreaming" MSM and "crazy" Left-Wing politicos make out Donald Trump to be?

Re:Of course they do

[nbauman]

Whenever a politician tells you he's endorsing regulations or licensing requirements for the public good or safety, grab your wallet.

However, when a private entrepreneur like Travis Kalanick tells you that he will destroy the industry, and a new, efficient free market will arise from its ashes, and you will all be better off, and the greedier he is, the better off you will be -- you can believe him.

Or, as Donald Trump says, "Trust me."

Re:Of course they do

[sysrammer]

"make more money working the same number of hours as McDonalds." FWIW, it'd have to be a good bump in the ol' pay envelope for me, if I was doing it. Lessee...

Uber: more or less working for self
McD: Under the supervision of that pimply faced youth drunk with power.

Uber: Working in my very own customized "cubicle". Padded seats, stereo, air.
McD: Standing behind a counter for 8 hours.

Uber: Set my own hours.
McD: Slave to schedule devised by aforementioned pimply faced youth.

Yes, if I was in such a situation, I would certainly analyze it further. But, for me, my first approximation leans very heavily on the Uber side.

Re:Of course they do

[JoeyRox]

It doesn't matter what claims a private entrepreneur makes or whether his claims are truthful or accurate. The government is enforcing its claim through the power of the state, making alternatives impossible, whereas a private entrepreneur cannot.

Re:Of course they do

[Man On Pink Corner]

Yes, that's correct, and it's why Uber has to fight dirty, to put it a bit more diplomatically than the GP poster did.

The taxi monopolies are immoral in themselves, and they have no place in a democratic society. We vote with our phones every time we call Uber instead of a taxi.

When the law does not respect the people, the people will not respect the law.

Re:Of course they do

[drinkypoo]

It's nothing to do with taxi fares, but limiting the total number of taxis on the road in Manhattan is a good way to accomplish that.

It's bullshit half-measures. What's wanted is the same thing that's wanted in every congested city, elevated PRT like Skytran. Maybe Skytran itself sucks, I don't know, I haven't inspected it that closely. The concept is sound. Cars make cities suck. The only people who should be driving around on a regular basis are people who don't even live there, and not commuters; they should be parking at some interim point and then getting into a PRT capsule that will deliver them if not directly to work, then even more closely than would a bus — and on a timely schedule, too. Free up the ground for humans to cycle and walk on, get the vehicles into the air.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the horror of making drivers properly trained, licensed, compensated and insured.

It's already illegal to drive a motor vehicle without a license, which requires proper training to obtain, or without insurance.

Re:Of course they do

[Uberbah]

Uber: more or less working for self

Uber drivers are free to pick and choose rides and set their own rates now? Breaking news at 11!

Uber: Working in my very own customized "cubicle". Padded seats, stereo, air.

And putting wear on it that can drop your earnings below minimum wage.

Uber: Set my own hours.
McD: Slave to schedule devised by aforementioned pimply faced youth.

And yet make more money in the process, and for a company that will pay out insurance in case of accident. And give you benefits if you work enough hours.

But, for me, my first approximation leans very heavily on the Uber side.

If you want to make less money while taking more risk to benefit some exploitive capitalist vultures, that's your call.

Re:Of course they do

[tehcyder]

It doesn't matter what claims a private entrepreneur makes or whether his claims are truthful or accurate. The government is enforcing its claim through the power of the state, making alternatives impossible, whereas a private entrepreneur cannot.

Part of the power of the state is to protect ordinary people against rich private entrepreneurs.

Private entrepreneurs could of course create monopolies if there were no government to prevent them (by enforcing laws against monopolies, extortion, murder and all the rest of the annoying anti-libertarian things that governments do).

Re:Of course they do

[JoeyRox]

Nearly all monopolies are created by the government rather than prevented by them, by the same causes I listed.

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmmm.... RICO anybody?

Re:Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Women requesting female drivers?

Isn't that against the law? If not, it should be.

Or will men be allowed to request male drivers. (After all, they are safer, mile per mile. :)

Re:Of course they do

[sysrammer]

True that for the car wear n tear. I turned down a job at a micro-fiching service because they wanted me to use my car. In this case, to make money, one had to route the fastest, even if it went over rough roads.

Rejected submission

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be almost impossible for people to use Uber or Lyft without having their credit card credentials stolen, then sold online for as little as $4 a card. With no way to reach a person at the ride-providing services, consumers appear to be left with no choice but to cancel yet another card and request a new one. Are there better ways of providing payment online, or easy ways of obtaining "burner" charge cards? Is this the fault of smartphone applications, or are these insider hacks?

FWIW, this theft seems like a concerted effort by a major competitor to Uber/Lyft to scare potential users away.

Re:Rejected submission

[desdinova 216]

honestly, if you dropped the Uber/Lyft aspect it might be an interesting ask /.

Re:Rejected submission

[0100010001010011]

Are there better ways of providing payment online, or easy ways of obtaining "burner" charge cards?

Citicards has 'virtual credit cards'. You can generate them for one time use or set a duration in months and/or dollar amount.

Re:Rejected submission

[GNious]

Being able to get "virtual honeypot" cards, that can be used once, and then all subsequent uses marked as fraudulent, could be interesting - help track down CC thieves.

Must sting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...getting beaten at your own game...

piling it on backfires sometimes

[rmdingler]

There have been some very public blemishes on Uber of late, but it seems unlikely evading authorities is going to generate much outrage on this site.

Indeed, this is much ado about nothing, and only newsworthy in the way the Oscar's became after the mistake.

Re:piling it on backfires sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'm a fan of uber and friends, but I wasn't aware that they were under any obligation to provide service for everyone, despite it not being in their interest to do so. This sounds like a case of calling the Whaaaambulance.

Re:piling it on backfires sometimes

[drinkypoo]

There have been some very public blemishes on Uber of late, but it seems unlikely evading authorities is going to generate much outrage on this site.

Outrage? Not really. But this is something that really could get them nailed to the wall for good. Pretending that they're serving those customers is a kind of fraud, and law enforcement has a reasonable right to use services available to the masses (does it take an account? sure. are they picky about who they give one to? not aside from things like this) to determine whether a service is operating legally. Their attempts to evade inspection are going to be a serious problem for them.

Re:piling it on backfires sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

I think authorities would, rightly, take a dim view of any establishment that tries to weed out cops only because they may detect wrong-doing.

And your absolutist view that a service provider is not under an obligation to provide services to anyone is also incorrect. There already is legislation in many countries that outlaws withholding services on the basis of membership of protected classes, and it is far from a moral stretch to state that doing so for reasons not limited to price, ties to locality or standing within a group, affiliation of interests and so on, is a good indication of something wrong.

Re:piling it on backfires sometimes

[tehcyder]

Not that I'm a fan of uber and friends, but I wasn't aware that they were under any obligation to provide service for everyone, despite it not being in their interest to do so. This sounds like a case of calling the Whaaaambulance.

If someone set up a shop and barred any law enforcement officers from entering, I imagine the effect would be approximately the same as putting up a big "we are are breaking the law" sign on the door.

What a shitpile of a company.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any reason to think this isn't just some pyramid scheme to defraud investors and steal from drivers?

Re:What a shitpile of a company.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ssshhhh! I'm busy short-selling Uber stock, it doesn't need to tank quite yet.

We certainly can't let it out that Uber causes cancer, makes Satanic sacrifices, supports gay-marriage, poisons the majestic Eagle, and is responsible for the Star Wars remakes.

Yet.

Re:What a shitpile of a company.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that Uber is not a publicly-traded company, you are not short selling it.

Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

News for people who want to follow controversial businesses without opening up a business journal, magazine or have access to google news.

Re:welcome to uberdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot goes through these phases. I remember when it was Apple, then Tesla.

having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Union Carbide or BP might beg to differ...

ToS

[Rick Schumann]

I think Ubers' 'Terms of Service' including 'circumventing laws' and 'evading law enforcement' tells you all anyone needs to know about Uber, even without all the legitimate news stories about Uber drivers committing acts of violence against passengers. Uber acts like something run by the Mob and should probably be shut down, permanently.

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

I am an Uber driver in the San Francisco bay area.

And I can't speak for other cities, but Uber is so cheap and ubiquitous in my area, Uber is cheaper than public transportation in many cases, it works even during rush hour when most people can't get a taxi, plus it works when Bart is shut down after midnight, that I am quite certain that we're keeping tens of thousands of drunk drivers from driving on the roads each year.

Re:ToS

[SethJohnson]

Per this insightful article, venture capital money is artificially subsidizing those rides to make them seem cheaper than public transportation.

So why do people keep using and working for Uber? Money has a lot to do with it. Uber has used venture capital money to offer lower fares that attract more customers. Those subsidies also help Uber attract drivers despite often erratic corporate policies and a lack of job security.

These subsidies create false perceptions about transportation costs such as the one you voiced. People think Uber is doing it right and the traditional taxi companies have been doing it wrong the whole time.

The national taxi business is only worth $11 billion a year. Why is Uber so highly valued? Why is so much venture capital funding injected into Uber?!? Those investors are expecting to own a monopoly position in the transportation service market. Obviously, the intent of such a monopoly would be to ruthlessly squeeze as much money as possible out of consumers.

Re:ToS

[Carewolf]

I think Ubers' 'Terms of Service' including 'circumventing laws' and 'evading law enforcement' tells you all anyone needs to know about Uber, even without all the legitimate news stories about Uber drivers committing acts of violence against passengers. Uber acts like something run by the Mob and should probably be shut down, permanently.

What do you mean "run by the mob". Uber IS organized crime. Their business is organizing crimes. They make it easy for illegal taxis to find customers.

Re:ToS

[pauljlucas]

Everything you said is equally true of Lyft, but Lyft is nowhere near as scummy of a company as Uber.

Re:ToS

[drinkypoo]

Obviously, the intent of such a monopoly would be to ruthlessly squeeze as much money as possible out of consumers.

That is the intent of nearly every for-profit business. However, I don't think you've thought this "monopoly" thing through. If Uber achieves their goals, and actually invalidates existing licensing systems, then anyone else who can afford to deploy the same sort of service as Uber can simply waltz in and do that. This is what makes guessing the end game for Uber so confusing. Are the execs just planning to sell the name and run before the law closes its hand around their collective throats? Because if they actually succeed in blowing open the taxicab market, it provides just as much opportunity to their competitors as it does to anyone else.

The odds are pretty good that all automakers are going to own rental fleets of autonomous vehicles. I, for one, have no intention of getting into one without a glass-breaking hammer any time soon, but that's a whole other discussion :)

Re:ToS

[DarkOx]

it works even during rush hour when most people can't get a taxi

I don't buy I was in SF Bay area just a couple weeks ago for a full week. I used cabs all week because Yellow cab made it so damned easy!

I called the first time talked to a person gave them address. Cab was there in less than 5 min. Called back their phone system remembered my previous pickup and destination address. Pressed a couple keys, cab was there in probably 5 min. Did this every day from the airport -> office -> hotel -> office -> hotel ..... -> airport. No probables fast reliable service every time right at rush hour.

Re:ToS

[DarkOx]

Their business is organizing crimes. They make it easy for illegal taxis to find customers.

No their business is aggregating, booking, and billing as a service to private taxis. There isn't anything inherently illegal about that business model. It may or may not even be a reasonable one for someone that wants to work as a livery driver. We shall see if the price supports and market are still there when the VC funny money runs out.

Now its true that Uber does not concern itself about the legality of private unlicensed taxis within the legal jurisdiction of various municipalities. Its not clear to me from a legal standpoint where the liability falls. Is the driver operating the illegal taxi or is uber. Some of that may depend on if uber drivers are determined to be employees or not.

I readily agree that laws should be enforced, and if they can't be enforced changed. The situation uber is creating where we have either a bunch of scofflaw drivers or a scofflaw company unber just getting away with it isn't acceptable. It undermines the rule of law itself.

Re: ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

If Uber achieves their goals, and actually invalidates existing licensing systems, then anyone else who can afford to deploy the same sort of service as Uber can simply waltz in and do that.

I used to think the same thing about Amazon when it was bleeding money in order to become the number one online bookstore. Essentially, I thought that since it was on the web, any other online bookstore could easily replace it, but I was completely wrong about that.

Customers have come to trust Amazon (even its own employees/temps/affiliates have learned to distrust it). Customer reviews, usually low prices, quick refunds, a familiar interface. Those are some of the reasons many customers still use Amazon, when they could simply be shopping on other websites.

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

These subsidies create false perceptions about transportation costs such as the one you voiced. People think Uber is doing it right and the traditional taxi companies have been doing it wrong the whole time.

This is very true, but in my opinion, even when that money runs out, I still think that Uber and Lyft will be running far more efficiently than Taxis.

Automated and reliable dispatching, LyftLine/UberPool (passengers sharing cars on the fly when they don't even know each other), crude but effective driver rating and customer reviewing system, destination filters for drivers when they want to go home (but not without passengers so they don't waste gas), elastic workforce for an elastic market,

Those are a few of the reasons I think Uber/Lyft are more efficient than taxis. Plus, there are a couple more reasons, but I would need to write a much long essay to explain (which I am not inclined to do right now).

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

Correction: I should have said "(even if its own employees/temps/affiliates have learned to distrust it)."

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

With the exception of their $2,000 insurance deductible (which is the double of Uber's), I agree completely. Lyft is much less scummier company. No doubt about that. Thought, they've also be caught in undercover stings and it wouldn't surprise me if they did the same thing as Uber in this particular case as well.

Re:ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

You are tremendously tarded.

How on earth do you think Uber will have a monopoly?

App loayalty?

The problem is exactly that taxis suck, and they are freeing us from all that waste. Idiot

Re:ToS

[A Pressbutton]

Maybe,

but please do not forget that Uber is a minicab service.

One way of being more efficient is to not pay the same overheads in terms of insurance / safety - and this is what they are doing.
Another is to pay drivers less - and this is what they are doing.

Moving on to real things,

if they operate cabs on a UK ambulance model (you use software to place ambulances near likely calls), they might be more efficient
if they minimise their own costs, they might be more efficient

Re:ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

at some point the paid drivers will be replaced with autonomous cars

that's their biggest expense

Re:ToS

[drinkypoo]

I used to think the same thing about Amazon when it was bleeding money in order to become the number one online bookstore. Essentially, I thought that since it was on the web, any other online bookstore could easily replace it, but I was completely wrong about that.

Books are not cars.

Customers have come to trust Amazon (even its own employees/temps/affiliates have learned to distrust it). Customer reviews, usually low prices, quick refunds, a familiar interface. Those are some of the reasons many customers still use Amazon, when they could simply be shopping on other websites.

Uber is going to have to raise their prices sooner or later, and if they succeed in their legal battles then there's nothing stopping the automakers themselves (who already have significant customer contact) or some other party with a reputable trademark from doing precisely what they are doing.

Re:ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

Well great. Your anecdotal experience proves we should just shut down Uber and go back to that system.

Re:ToS

[Carewolf]

Their business is organizing crimes. They make it easy for illegal taxis to find customers.

No their business is aggregating, booking, and billing as a service to private taxis. There isn't anything inherently illegal about that business model.

Except if you do that as taxi company who charges illegal taxi fees, requires their drivers to break the law, and generally refuse to obey the laws for black cabs or taxis everywhere they operate. Uber breaks the law, their drivers breaks the law, and it is all deliberate and persisting even after being warned and fined for it multiple times.

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

Did this every day from the airport -> office -> hotel -> office -> hotel ..... -> airport.

I am very glad to hear that their system has been upgraded. I must admit it's been a very long time since I've taken an actual taxi. But just like me, the locals in SF have been conditioned not to depend on taxis during those hours. Plus, the fact that some taxis are now more reliable could be credited to Uber and Lyft relieving the pressure on taxi companies during those same hours.

Traditionally, the best way to get a cab before Uber/Lyft during rush hour in SF was to walk to a nice hotel with a doorman. Customers from nice hotels were more likely to tip and take longer trips. Also, the doorman would expect some cash back from the taxi driver, but at the same time, the doorman served the function of quality control, because he could blacklist taxis that he personally called on the phone, but who actually didn't show up because they picked up someone else before getting to the hotel.

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

I didn't say that Uber was necessarily going to win (especially worldwide). Right now, Lyft is actually profitable (unlike Uber), although it's much less aggressive. Plus, Lyft has China backing them, so because of that, I think it is still in the game.

Whoever is going to win will need deep pockets backing them. For instance, in my area customers have come to expect rides to show up in less 5 minutes. To get that kind of response time, a competitor would need to completely saturate an area with cars. Also, there is a lot of intelligence and analytics going into allocating different incentives and making sure that your fleet is dispersed enough so that it doesn't clump too much in certain areas depending on demand.

Also, Uber drivers are operating on razor thin margins. If an automaker gets into the fray, it will need to have the most reliable and the most fuel-efficient cars for city driving. Just to give you an example, my first month I put 5,000 miles on my car. Right now, that automaker front-runner is Toyota. And also, Uber and Lyft are burning through cars like crazy and in a way, they already have a symbiotic relationship with car manufacturers. For instance, Toyota owns a chunk of Uber already.

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

Yes, those are good points as well.

This is actually one reason I don't want to remain an Uber driver for long. I know Uber is good for consumers, and that it is good for someone who needs to find a job very quickly, but it's not really a good long-term investment for its drivers. That, I completely agree with.

I also think of Lyft the same way. Ultimately, both companies are trying to commoditize the industry. This is the same strategy Amazon itself has taken. If you can commoditize the industry and develop the economies of scale to do it, then the thinking is that no other competitor can come in and touch you.

Re:ToS

[drinkypoo]

Also, Uber drivers are operating on razor thin margins. If an automaker gets into the fray, it will need to have the most reliable and the most fuel-efficient cars for city driving.

Which is why the premier candidate right now would be GM. They have an EV with good range, and they can produce a lot of them. Who knows who it will be by the time Level 5 vehicles become a reality.

Re:ToS

[tehcyder]

Uber is cheaper than public transportation in many cases

Then you have a ridiculously expensive public transportation system.

I am quite certain that we're keeping tens of thousands of drunk drivers from driving on the roads each year

Think of all those innocent childrens' lives you're sparing by preventing them being run over by a drunk driver at 2am!

Uber should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Or something.

Re:ToS

[tehcyder]

Well great. Your anecdotal experience proves we should just shut down Uber and go back to that system.

It makes a change from the normal AC posts about how every taxi they've ever taken has resulted in them being raped at knifepoint and robbed of thousands of dollars in cash, plus the seats weren't very clean and the driver looked like a terrorist.

Re:ToS

[stephanruby]

Then you have a ridiculously expensive public transportation system.

In Oakland, the ACTransit bus fare for a single ride is $2.10 for an adult. Transfers are no longer sold (this is a recent thing). But they recently added an adult day pass for $5. However, this $5 day pass won't work on Bart, nor on the SF muni, nor on the ACTransit Transbay buses.

On the other hand, a short UberX ride can cost as low as $5 and carry 4 passengers. And a short UberPool ride (in which the rider shares the car with other people he doesn't know) can cost as low as $2.40.

Think of all those innocent childrens' lives you're sparing by preventing them being run over by a drunk driver at 2am!

Maybe not children, but potentially homeless people, highway workers, other drunk people, nurses/caregivers, bartenders, security guards, taxi drivers, and other people going out at night.

And then, there is the life of the drunk driver himself or herself and/or any of passenger friends. Also, Emergency Rooms and Trauma Centers are not cheap, and so is prison too (if the drunk driver ends up killing someone). Not to mention the damage of both public and private property.

So what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Government officials not liking competition when it comes to dishonesty? Sweet irony...

Executive with ethics of a Mafia Don

[CraigCruden]

If you are fine doing business with the mafia then you should be fine with Uber.... but if you should favour ethical companies (or more ethical companies)... Uber is a bad choice.

Re:Executive with ethics of a Mafia Don

[Anonymous Coward]

What taxi company is a "ethical" company??

Uber Hit Squad

[phantomfive]

I'm open to the idea that Uber is an evil company, but what's with all the Uber news lately? We've had story after story this week. It isn't normal, even for a company as bad as Oracle, to have news story after news story released like this. The whole thing looks like someone is leaking to the press at an opportune time, which raises the question,

cui bono? I don't know the answer to that, but it must be somebody.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[ruir]

Inside stock manipulation?

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[phantomfive]

Possibly, but how would that work? Usually you put out negative stories to bring the price down, so you can buy, then the stock goes up when profits are released and people forget the bad news. How would it work in the case of a private company like this?

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[rmdingler]

It would benefit a potential suitor.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[quantaman]

I'm open to the idea that Uber is an evil company, but what's with all the Uber news lately? We've had story after story this week. It isn't normal, even for a company as bad as Oracle, to have news story after news story released like this. The whole thing looks like someone is leaking to the press at an opportune time, which raises the question,

cui bono? I don't know the answer to that, but it must be somebody.

It's a combination of coincidence and blood in the water.

Uber has been a consistent source of negative stories for a long time, that a few would hit the same news cycle is hardly unexpected.

But people are also paying attention to Uber right now. If you're Google now is a good time to take a shot at Uber, when they're too distracted to fight back. And if you're a reporter your Uber story is going to get a lot more traction, so it's time to start digging.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[phantomfive]

That's true.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[stephanruby]

Perhaps, I can answer that question.

Disclaimer: I'm currently an Uber driver and I do love driving for Uber (despite my pay being ridiculously low and which seems of getting cut every single week these past four weeks). But we're so cheap, ubiquitous, and we're run a thousand times more efficiently than taxis, that I am also quite certain that we're saving thousands of lives every day from drunk driving incidents.

I personally think there are several reasons for the bad press.

Reason #1: Our Uber CEO, Travis, is slightly autistic, immature, and has zero emotional intelligence (yes, I know, I know, I'm not a doctor, but that's my uneducated opinion at least). Plus, I can't really say that he's my CEO since I'm technically not even an employee, I'm a contractor, but that's how I feel anyhow. That's why I'll keep on calling him my CEO.

Reason #2: Travis allied himself with Trump, which explains some of the organized backlash from the left. But unlike Trump, Travis can't lie, which is also a big problem. Trump and Travis are two different extremes. Ideally, a CEO needs to be able to lie sometimes, or spin things a certain way, but Travis is incapable of doing that. His worst offense is when he gave a speech at a dinner with hundreds of journalists present.

Reason #3: Uber does employ many immigrants (although in my opinion, they all speak better English than US taxi drivers, since Uber is absolutely ruthless the way they deactivate drivers that are not up to par). And this is also why, not only Uber already has the left trying to take down Uber because of reason #2, but the right, the Trump supporters, and/or the UK Brexit voters, are also against Uber.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[radarskiy]

"all the Uber news lately"

These stories were always there. What you are seeing is the collapse of the Uber hype bubble.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[dbIII]

But we're so cheap, ubiquitous, and we're run a thousand times more efficiently than taxis

True, not having to pay tax, insurance, decent wages and expecting drivers to pay for vehicles makes it more efficient than a law abiding taxi company.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[rsmith-mac]

But people are also paying attention to Uber right now. If you're Google now is a good time to take a shot at Uber, when they're too distracted to fight back. And if you're a reporter your Uber story is going to get a lot more traction, so it's time to start digging.

You're not wrong; there's definitely a bit of blood in the water.

However Uber is unique in that they're managing to find new and exciting ways to fuck up, from the way they treat their drivers to how they interact with governments.

To use the GP's example, at least Oracle is consistently evil: you know what they're going to do from the start. But with Uber it's a new surprise each week!

Re: Uber Hit Squad

[Anonymous Coward]

A year or so ago Uber had lots of positive press on Slashdot. This sort of cycle is pretty common, and doesn't #require# a conspiracy theory.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually pretty normal, because they are in the news people are interested and so reporters are trying to dig up stories. When they dig they find someone willing to talk.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] Uber is absolutely ruthless the way they deactivate drivers that are not up to par [...}

That's exactly what scares me: they fire drivers without telling them what exactly they did wrong, they refuse service to customers for an alleged violation of TOS without telling what exactly the customer has violated. No explanation, no recourse. Everything decided by some secret algorithm, which is probably biased, buggy and not available for review.

These are the times I believe that European laws explicitly forbidding discrimination against customers are a fairly good thing :)

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[Tenebrousedge]

Uber have always been unethical pieces of shit. Remember when they had fake taxis on their maps? Prove that they don't still do that, even. What you're saying is that you ignored the previous indications that these were bad actors and got suckered by their propaganda stream. However, for those of us who have been paying attention, it's been pretty clear that the positive press has been bought and paid for, but now it seems that they can't keep a lid on things any more.

You were too eager to believe in this company. Every news story on Uber posted here has had people raising legitimate complaints about this company. And now you're "open to the idea"? No. Now it's blatantly obvious and you're engaged in rationalization.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[drinkypoo]

No explanation, no recourse. Everything decided by some secret algorithm, which is probably biased, buggy and not available for review.

Just like our health insurance system! And I do mean just like it.

These are the times I believe that European laws explicitly forbidding discrimination against customers are a fairly good thing :)

We could use a lot more protection from corporations, but they own the government now.

Re: Uber Hit Squad

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly it's the Trump effect, and you'd already know that if your read all the stores you claim to know about. That's fine if you're a sympathizer, just be upfront about it.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[tehcyder]

It would benefit a potential suitor.

Yes, it might reduce the value of Uber down from $66 billion to something slightly more realistic like zero.

Re: Uber Hit Squad

[tehcyder]

A year or so ago Uber had lots of positive press on Slashdot. This sort of cycle is pretty common, and doesn't #require# a conspiracy theory.

A year ago, the actual stories about Uber were generally neutral (if rather too frequent) but the comments were generally something like 80-90% in favour of Uber. Slashdot Inc obviously realised this was a popular topic. It's just that Uber themselves are a shitty company, and slashdot can't legitimately hide all the stories about the shitty things they do any more.

Re:Uber Hit Squad

[rmdingler]

Crazy, right?

Uber has higher valuation than companies that make the cars its drivers use At $70 billion, Uber would pass the market value of GM (GM), Honda (HMC) and Ford (F) -- three companies Uber CEO Travis Kalanick should thank simply for existing. Ford and Honda are worth about $60 billion, while GM has a market value of around $55 billion.

The only way to deal with such firms

[WillAffleckUW]

Is to arrest and jail their execs first.

Just like the mafia.

Going after the low level never works.

Arrest them, ship them to GITMO, and let them stand trial in a few decades.

Re:The only way to deal with such firms

[Anonymous Coward]

Is to arrest and jail their execs first.

Just like the mafia.

Going after the low level never works.

Arrest them, ship them to GITMO, and let them stand trial in a few decades.

I hope you get terminal cancer soon, you fascist piece of trash.

Re:The only way to deal with such firms

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you learn what "fascist" means soon, you illiterate dolt.

Re:welcome to uberdot

[Hognoxious]

Noob. I remember when it was all Retard Niquepaille's technology trends.

Arabic numbers, the future or a fad? That was a classic.

Yes, SJW hate target

[SuperKendall]

Social Justice Warriors have had it in for Uber for a while. The standard tactic is to find a few things wrong and flood the news cycle with hate and loathing for the target, which they are doing now with Uber. I've seen the secondary attacks mass on Twitter and Facebook from liberal friends.

Hang in there Uber, the storm will pass. Few will remember this after a week has passed...

Re:Yes, SJW hate target

[johanw]

I will remember: Uber, the heroic company that stood up against SJW's and government entrapment, instead of cowering on behalf of the legal department.

Re:Yes, SJW hate target

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to your boycott of Target, Kellog's, and Beauty and the Beast, your little whine routine didn't work when it was Reagan fighting against apartheid either.

Personally, I'm donating a box of Honey Smacks in your name to Planned Parenthood. Expect the card in the mail soon.

Re:Yes, SJW hate target

[SuperKendall]

Beauty and the Beast was one of my all-time favorite movies, you cad. I also favor Kellogg's cereal, and the only thing I have against Target is they still steadfastly refuse to take an Apple Watch for payment... I still shop there from time to time though.

So what was your point exactly? You seem rather mired in the past. I'm talking about the present, where a tired group of harpies attempts to destroy anyone they disagree with - the ultimate example of fascist behavior.

Re:Yes, SJW hate target

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascist wouldn't be correct. It's certainly anti-social. I think he's assuming you're boycotting Target because they don't hire bathroom police. At least that's the only one I recognized and that's only because I'm trans and heard about it from somebody else trans.

Re:Yes, SJW hate target

[NormalVisual]

Entrapment? No. Uber was going to engage in the illegal behavior whether an undercover cop asked for a ride or not.

Re:Yes, SJW hate target

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm talking about the present, where a tired group of harpies attempts to destroy anyone they disagree with - the ultimate example of fascist behavior.

Yes, and that's why present-day examples were brought up, of a tired group of harpies who are crowing about the evils of Target(for their dreaded bathroom policies), Kellogg's (for cancelling advertising on a site), and Beauty and the Beast(for having a homosexual character), demanding a boycott, and otherwise making those attempts to destroy them that you so recently denounced.

You seem confused, it's almost like you know nothing about what you're actually doing in the world. But then, you probably forgot about how you started a war against people who don't want to celebrate Christmas, especially if they had a Santa of color. The only acceptable Santa is PALE WHITE.

Try actually reporting news

[Anonymous Coward]

> Matt Rosoff, editorial director at CNBC Digital added, I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now.

I've seen CNBC business news. Maybe if you actually, I don't know, interviewed somebody who was sent to you by the PR department of the business you were covering to spin the story, you might have heard a few more cases? SCO Group's implosion was still in progress when you started, and the entire reign of Carly Fiorina at HP had at least as much ethically and morally questionable "business practices" reported.

Follow the money.

[msauve]

"I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now."

Not that Uber isn't evil, because they are. But it would be interesting to know who holds the most shorts on them.

And, pay a lawyer enough, and they'll "sign off" on anything. Doing it for obstruction of justice seems to be a risky proposition, though. I'd think that would (or should) put the lawyers into a disbarring type situation, if not criminal sanctions.

Re:Follow the money.

[msauve]

Before anyone jumps in, I know they're not publicly traded.

Re:Follow the money.

[dbIII]

"I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now."

Funny how the tech journalist forgot about Enron and later a few dozen companies that some very bad press around 2008. Exxon, Union Carbide and so on had their bad press a bit more than 21 years back, I suppose, and TEPCO (Fukishima) are in Japan.

Re:Follow the money.

[tehcyder]

Before anyone jumps in, I know they're not publicly traded.

Did you know they're not publicly traded?

Re:Follow the money.

[tehcyder]

"I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now."

Funny how the tech journalist forgot about Enron and later a few dozen companies that some very bad press around 2008. Exxon, Union Carbide and so on had their bad press a bit more than 21 years back, I suppose, and TEPCO (Fukishima) are in Japan.

I think that as he specified he was a tech journalist, he was referring to tech companies only.

See what I mean, proves SJW activity

[SuperKendall]

My pretty much instant down-mod is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. The SJW playbook is to silence truth quickly and ruthlessly. Downloading this post as well should be the final proof.

Re: See what I mean, proves SJW activity

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you post an offtopic troll about imaginary SJWs, then when people reject your blathering, you complain about persecution.

Sorry, you are just a whining baby, and your self-professed martyrdom is actually people telling you that they aren't buying your crap.

But go ahead, tell us about the "illegal voters" and "enemies of the people" so we know exactly where you stand.

How is this not racketeering?

[taustin]

If I lived a little closer to their headquarters, I'd start a private RICO lawsuit. Even if the feds pick it up (and they should), I'd still get a cut of the billions in penalties. I wonder if I could crowd-source the legal fees to get that going?

Re:How is this not racketeering?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if I could crowd-source the legal fees to get that going?

You need a TortStarter!

Given today's world, I'm rather surprised that domain doesn't exist as of yet.

Double standard much?

[PPH]

Post a story about how the FBI/CIA/NSA are sniffing around your phones or e-mail and watch the Slashdot community scream about jack-booted thugs. Uber manages to implement a system that warns of potential law enforcement encroachment into their affairs and everyone gets righteous.

If Uber could spin off Greyball as an independent service, I could think of a few people that would buy it.

Private Parties Acting Rationally.

[Anonymous Coward]

Private Parties Acting Rationally.

Greyball

[dohzer]

What's Greyball and how does it work?

Re:Greyball

[Anonymous Coward]

That's content that's too technical for this forum...oh Slashdot, how far you have fallen.

Since when does Uber care about drivers?

[RubberDogBone]

Since when does Uber give two shits about what happens to their drivers?

They act like they could not care less if the drivers are murdered by passengers, are hijacked, or caught up in a sting operation of some kind. Uber has made it clear the drivers are on their own in such cases and don't call them for bail money.

There is NO way they ran this filtering app to benefit drivers when they don't give a shit about the drivers. They've got so many new drivers begging to sign up, existing drivers are of no concern to Uber at all. One existing driver drops out or gets killed or arrested, oh well: three more replace that one.

Re: Since when does Uber care about drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Lyft employee for the Totally Unbiased Opinion! (tm)

That's pretty smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice that Uber cares about their drivers and takes steps to keep them safe.

Of course, with the taxicab mafia resorting to violence and attacks on all fronts in an attempt to keep their racket alive, I guess steps need to be taken. Some will always fear progress and try to stop it.

Uber is one step ahead of the article poster too

[dbIII]

This is the kind of thing a DA would put in front of a judge if they wanted to subpoena Uber's business records for an entire city

Uber seems to be one step ahead of that too. Uber's office in Australia was raided by tax officials but they came away without even a list of drivers because according to Uber that information is only available to the head office in the Netherlands.

Source?

[manu0601]

Do we know how that information fallen into the hands of journalists? It seems Uber also has insider foes.

Re:Source?

[thegarbz]

What gave that away? Stories of angry drivers or stories of angry sexually harassed engineers?

Re:Source?

[gravewax]

of course they have insider Foes, they treat most of their staff like shit.

Uber will be the first target of GDPR enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

GDPR is the EU law that carries penalties of up to 4% of gross income a year. The law requires stuff like enabling individuals to delete or PORT their personal info to, say lyft.

I'm betting they're licking their chops... Presuming Uber survives what almost seems like a negative press rolling thunder by an adversary.

Re:welcome to uberdot

[fluffernutter]

When does the Tesla phase end?

Re:Never used Uber

[LVSlushdat]

Lyft works better and treats its drivers FAR better..

Now I'm kinda glad

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

After interviewing with them recently, now I'm kinda glad that Uber didn't extend an offer to me; the company seems to have been involved in a *lot* of tricky shit lately, not the least of which is that the CEO appears to be a gigantic flaming asshole.

Writing an app specifically designed to help them break or flout the local laws isn't anything to be proud of. I gotta wonder how many man-hours went into building that, and how many programmers ignored their conscience to make it happen. Didn't ANY of them stop and say, "Hey, this isn't right...."?

Had they made me an offer I almost certainly would have taken it, but I think I'd be feeling kinda shitty and conflicted about it now.

Re:Now I'm kinda glad

[tehcyder]

After interviewing with them recently, now I'm kinda glad that Uber didn't extend an offer to me

No, no, that sounds like a job interview, and we all know that Uber isn't an employer. Shame on you for falling for the taxi-government cartel's lies.

Re:Now I'm kinda glad

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

No, no, that sounds like a job interview, and we all know that Uber isn't an employer. Shame on you for falling for the taxi-government cartel's lies.

I wasn't interviewing as a driver, I was interviewing as a technical writer in their software development division. So yeah, it was a job interview.

Re:welcome to uberdot

[dbIII]

When does the Tesla phase end?

When we started using more DC electric motors.

Irrelevant comparison much?

[Uberbah]

Comparing government illegally spying on your every personal communication to government oversight of monied interests is so far off-base that you're off-planet.

Re:Irrelevant comparison much?

[PPH]

government ... business

You really think there's a difference? How cute.

Re:Irrelevant comparison much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't believe data hording everything you possibly can and then mining it to find people to bust is different from getting reports of someone not following laws and then investigating those reports? What a wrapped world view you have.

RICO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smells like racketeering and obstruction of justice.

What governments can do

[AHuxley]

Understand how all your best local and state workers are been discovered and tracked digitally.
Walking into and staying in a gov building kind of shows that on average a person might work for a gov but its not 9 to 5 but way more than a normal private sector person needing something from their gov as a one time visit.
People who report back to a gov building for a few hours per week might be undercover. That sorts most of the private sector visits and normal gov workers.
Some low tech ways to counter such easy tracking.
Hire new staff and ensure they never enter a city, state gov building. A private sector front company to work from.
Use a trendy phone and app like as average person would. The brand of device matches the average call rate and cost of the service.
Using a service at 10am or 2pm more than average from a very cheap phone is not normal in a nation of workers at work.

South African law enforcement faced such issues in the 1990's. Its older generation of expert undercover officers faced public comment.
Its new officers lacked decades of undercover skills. So teams got created that never went near any gov/police buildings. Skill sets got protected, teams trained and tracking such people who never showed any connection to law enforcement was difficult.

The way the CIA gets its staff into the US state department and ready for missions under US diplomatic cover in Russia.
Russia is able to look back over the entire public and private digital life of all US embassy staff using US public and very expensive private sector methods.
How does the CIA get its best into Russia? The CIA creates the perfect US government worker that finds an embassy job. Their past does not link back to some fancy US college, mil or in any way with anything that could be CIA. Such generational CIA teams can then move around Russia with Russia thinking they might really just be normal embassy staff. Just a normal worker walking around Russia. No CIA skill sets on show.

Re:Protected class

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to pay for me to use Uber and get me a phone that has GPS, sure why not.

Obstructing justice.

[sethstorm]

What does Uber have to hide by avoiding the law?

Re:welcome to uberdot

[NormalVisual]

At least we're past the Bennett Haselton period.

Congestion

[Tenebrousedge]

I keep having to repeat myself on this issue. We don't want unlimited competition in the transportation market because that market cannot price in congestion. The point at which sitting in traffic becomes unprofitable is far past the point of gridlock. If you would like to see the results of this, go down to Panama City. There are thousands of taxis, and you had better just hope you don't need to get across the city after midday. Good luck even getting a driver to pick you up. They can't collude to do surge pricing though, and Uber doesn't lose shit when you sit in traffic.

There are these things called "market failures", and they happen to be a very good reason to limit the number of taxi medallions in a given city. Competition is not always your friend.

Re:Congestion

[JoeyRox]

How does restricting service so that some customers can't get a taxi serve to prevent or fix "market failures"?

Re:Congestion

[Tenebrousedge]

The answer to your question is contained in the previous post.

Again, Congestion

[Tenebrousedge]

We need a barrier to entry. We cannot afford to have unlimited competition in this market, because this market cannot price in congestion. Taxis are happy to bill you for their time even if you're sitting in gridlock. The system does not self-correct. Your further political arguments are uninteresting.

Re:Again, Congestion

[DarkOx]

because this market cannot price in congestion

The market absolutely could price congestion if we had more private roads.

Re:Again, Congestion

[Tenebrousedge]

I'm trying not to view this as imbecilic. Perhaps you can convince me that there's some sense I'm not seeing. It's still Before Coffee here, after all.

Re:Again, Congestion

[nbauman]

because this market cannot price in congestion

The market absolutely could price congestion if we had more private roads.

You are free to build private roads in, say, Manhattan if you can convince the people who currently own the land to sell it to you.

Re:Again, Congestion

[nbauman]

We need a barrier to entry. We cannot afford to have unlimited competition in this market, because this market cannot price in congestion. Taxis are happy to bill you for their time even if you're sitting in gridlock. The system does not self-correct. Your further political arguments are uninteresting.

I know from experience that if I take a taxi in midtown Manhattan between about 5:30pm and 8:00pm, I will be stuck in traffic that moves so slowly that I could walk faster.

Adding more taxis will increase the traffic.

And adding more highways will increase the traffic (that's what happened on Long Island).

Re:Again, Congestion

[sysrammer]

Corp lobbies local govt to simply declare eminent domain. Then sell the roads to the highest bidder. Now we have private roads "to let the market work". Simple.

"Capitalism. It's what's for dinner."

Re:Again, Congestion

[sysrammer]

I was touristing in Seoul once. Every time I wanted to go somewhere else in the city, I'd look at the well-regulated taxi stands. With a well-regulated line of 20-40 people. All the time, it seemed.

We were young and healthy, so my friends and I ended up criss-crossing the city several times on foot instead.

I think I remember there wasn't much congestion, if any.

IDGAF

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject matter depending, we get a fair bit of the "Technology will librerate us" argument, especially from the hacker community - even if the /. community tends to err a little on the side of biggub. In this instance technology has liberated us from a horrible distorted marketplace resulting from massive regulation (licensing, registration, insurance, fixed pricing) and this is what they needed to do to stay away from the strong arm of the law.

The marketplace has spoken. No third parties were injured. Did we expect our representatives and officials to forfeit their monopoly on private transportation?

Good for them and I'd love a copy

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is a business and therefore has the right to refuse service. No one wants to use a service that may get them into trouble or have their privacy violated just because the Stingray thing isn't working out so well.

Re:Good for them and I'd love a copy

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uber is a business and therefore has the right to refuse service.
There is no absolute right to refuse service for any reason.

Re:Good for them and I'd love a copy

[ruir]

Have you seen anytime "Right of admission reserved" in any brick and mortar private clubs or restaurants?

I'd license greyball

[Anonymous Coward]

For my saas biz to *see* competition secret shopping us. Blocking law enforcement or lyft is not just prone to false positives, it's futile.

SJW Hate Target

[sethstorm]

Social Justice Warriors have had it in for Uber for a while. The standard tactic is to find a few things wrong and flood the news cycle with hate and loathing for the target, which they are doing now with Uber. I've seen the secondary attacks mass on Twitter and Facebook from liberal friends.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

How they have not been shut down for about a million legitimate reasons at this point is a real mystery. Why is this company so untouchable?

Re:welcome to uberdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot goes through these phases. I remember when it was Apple, then Tesla.

Maybe the mods at /. are running some sort of stock "pump and dump" or "bash and cash" scheme in the background?

Re: Never used Uber

[cthulhu11]

This is why I use Lyft exclusively. Most of the drivers do both. Lyft's app lets one tip; Ãoeber's doesn't and is vague about it. I think the Lyft app doesnt estimate a fare, but really it's not like that would affect my usage anyway. I either need a ride or I don't.

Re: Never used Uber

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Lyft does estimate fares. It allows passengers to tip, but it usually rounds out to about 3%, so not world shattering tipping here

Fuck Uber and Fuck Trump!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Uber and Fuck Trump!

SJW Hate Target.

[sethstorm]

Social Justice Warriors have had it in for Uber for a while. The standard tactic is to find a few things wrong and flood the news cycle with hate and loathing for the target, which they are doing now with Uber. I've seen the secondary attacks mass on Twitter and Facebook from some liberal friends.

Re:welcome to uberdot

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably just busy making someone. He's a frequent maker.

Finding better clientele

[billd10]

Don't these government employees have their government cars to ride around in? And they're sure not to leave a tip, So Uber is obviously trying to steer a better class of customer into their drivers' vehicles.

Re:welcome to uberdot

[tehcyder]

Slashdot goes through these phases. I remember when it was Apple, then Tesla.

Maybe the mods at /. are running some sort of stock "pump and dump" or "bash and cash" scheme in the background?

That would suggest a hard, ruthless master intelligence behind the scenes at slashdot. This seems somewhat unlikely.