At least one critic of the company warned exactly about this a long while ago:
"Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters: They also exist to protect the more vulnerable members of society. Back home in London (where such statistics are available), 11 women a month are attacked in unlicensed cabs, and unlicensed drivers are responsible for a horrifying 80 percent of all stranger rapes. If Uber doesn't have to follow licensing laws, then neither does any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to paint the word 'TAXI' on the side of his car, and start offering rides via the Internet. A disruptive CEO will shrug (and there's a foreshadowing word) and insist that it’s not his fault that such criminals exist."[1]
This is very different from the dark days of unlicensed London minicabs. Unlicensed minicab drivers would literally not be traceable - no driver id, no company, no receipt. The car would have license plates but even then how do you track down the driver? Here the fact that she ordered the driver by phone, and had a receipt on her phone, means that she could clearly track down the cab driver. Which is a good thing, and probably the best possible deterrent to this kind of thing happening more often.
[edit] Also its worth noting that the reason people would risk unlicensed cabs in London was that taxi licenses were so strictly controlled that prices were quite ridiculous for many.[edit2] And that the solution to the issue in London was to license the minicabs where trying to shut them down demonstrably failed.
"Taxi Satelital" is a taxi company valued for its safety and overall ease of use, that subcontracts each ride to a pool of licensed drivers (like uber).
A young woman accused one of its drivers of drugging and abusing her. Everyone assumed she was right and went all "duke-lacrosse" on the firm, which we assumed will have to go bust soon. The next day, the CEO appeared on TV with a CC video, the phone call audio, GPS records, and even one witness, showing that she was indeed making it up.
After seeing this happen one too many times, I think its prudent if we withhold judgement and let the police do their job. That said, I do believe unlicensed drivers are a huge issue in thefts, kidnappings, and rapes in many parts of the world (London as you quoted, but this is also common knowledge in most of Latin America)
You can't just become an uber driver. They are licensed livery drivers registered with each state. I'm not sure it is any less stringent application than becoming a cab driver.
Tracking, people are far less likely to commit crimes if they need to be identified beforehand.
Background checking, while far from foolproof it's both a deterrent and a preventative measure.
Higher barriers to entry, if it takes significant amounts of effort and money to be able to drive a cab then people are both less likely to risk it and going to try something else to have their 'fun'.
Uber drivers are already identified beforehand, have to go through background checks, and, as we've learned in the article, are suspended if they are even accused of a crime. They are also tracked by GPS and probably cam, and probably will soon be tracked via other means as well (driver's door opening, etc.)
Uber isn't a ride-sharing service. Their drivers are just as tracked and identified as normal taxi drivers are. Probably more tracked than a typical limo service is.
(I also do not believe that the ride sharing services are particularly risky.)
Well, if unlicensed drivers constitute 80% of all stranger rapes (seems high, but let's take it at face value), and fewer than 80% of all drivers are unlicensed (highly likely), it certainly does seem to do something to help prevent it. Maybe easy trace-ability and filtering out of previously convicted criminals plays a part, which isn't too big a stretch.
Or alternately: people inclined to use taxis to facilitate rape are not really driving for a living anyway, and are likely not concerned about violating a licensing law.
According to the article, the (legally, still "alleged") rapist was a licensed limo driver with Capital Limo. With the information we have so far, he was following the law totally with respect to taxi/limo licensing.
Such a position is tantamount to saying that information brokers should be responsible for what others do with their information. That would basically moot the 1st amendment. Understandably, the limo/taxi business is somewhat exceptional, since a passenger is so much in the power of the driver. But even here, we now have technology that could moot such laws. (There's no reason why drivers couldn't be required by companies to install cameras, for example.)
Except Uber drivers are licensed with their parent companies who provide the cars and services to fill Uber requests. Or that was my impression of their model.
I don't really appreciate the fact that the suspect is named publicly, but the victim is not. It should be either neither, or both, preferably the former. Every time I see an article about rape, there are hints of bias to full on convictions in the court of public opinion. Innocent until proven guilty!
Uber probably has GPS data for the Driver's phone. Did he linger at the destination long enough for a rape to occur? Or did he immediately begin traveling towards his next fare?
There's a character witness for the driver, but what about for the woman? After all, she was just kicked out of a bar...
What is the status of her injury?
There's just not enough information here for this to justify as news quite yet.
I started to agree with you in terms of "fair is fair", but on the other hand rape is severely undereported partly because of the embarrassment, if you know you'll be publicly named I can't imagine that will increase the number of reports.
I don't support naming victims of any crimes, certainly including rape (unless the victims consent or their identity is unavoidably public).
That said, I'd like to see some numbers about reporting of stranger-rape. I know that acquaintance-rape is heavily underreported, and as a very large amount of rape is acquaintance-rape, that means that rape is underreported. I'm ignorant about the reporting rate of stranger-rape.
It's not just about cause and effect though. If I were a woman I don't think I'd want every potential future jilted boyfriend to be able to Google my name in the future and discover I'd been raped. Not because of embarrassment, but because they could re-victimize just by bringing it back up. But of course, there is the element of embarrassment for many, which just adds to the problem of having it completely public.
He's pointing out that the only "evidence" so far against the driver is not coming from the most reliable source - in this case, a woman so intoxicated that she was kicked out of a bar.
If you get high enough you get symptoms of paranoia. Maybe the fact that he talked to her a little bit in the cab scared her, and when she got raped she didn't have a good enough look at the perpetrator and assumed that it was the cab driver.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's unfortunate that his name is being plastered over the news like this.
I'm with you on this. Its almost as if the op is blaming the victim for allowing this to happen.
Just think how you would feel if this was your mother, sister, or daughter. You would not have the same attitude. Women never deserve this, ever. It scars them for life.
Not to diminish what is going on but at this point all we have is heresy, we don't know what actually happened. She could have been drunk enough that she thought it happened when it didn't (knew a few people like that, men and women in college), or she could have a history of making accusations (rape or not). It is also equally likely that something did happen to her and that her accusations are accurate and something should be done (prosecution). At this point we must wait until at least a judge has heard the case and if there is any kind of prosecution going forward. Only then can we even begin to form any kind of cogent opinion on the matter given all the variables and unanswered questions.
Personally I do it for every case. I see it happen for murder trials, sexual abuse cases, everything in the media where the presumption is that the person is guilty and it's just a question of how much. Right now what's been reported does look fairly damning but the evidence itself hasn't been shown to the public or a jury yet. The only way for someone to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is to be skeptical of everything.
It's not a question of guilty/innocent; it's the question of "well she was so drunk she got kicked out of the bar, so how could it have been rape" being _absolute bullshit_.
First: I'm always skeptical. I fear how easily it would be to be marked with a scarlet letter. I rather 10 guilty men go free, for any crime of any magnitude, than have 1 innocent man be punished.
Second:
Murder yields a body.
Theft creates a void.
Vandalism leaves a mark.
The body left by rape cannot distinguish between regret and terror. The void cannot be measured by the outside. The mark may be an act of theater.
However, the public demands justice and often we lose sight of our principles. The court of public opinion cares not about a shadow of a doubt.
It's the word of one person against the word of another. If it were two men and you had to choose whom to believe, you would probably find it more likely that the lier is the one that otherwise causes more problems, and e.g. gets kicked out of bars.
So when an otherwise upstanding man brutally rapes a vulnerable woman, it's his word against hers? Rape is almost always perpetrated from a position of power. That's why most rapes are committed by men against women.
> So when an otherwise upstanding man brutally rapes a vulnerable woman, it's his word against hers?
Unless there are witnesses or evidence (e.g. camera, sperm, bruises, ...), then, yes, obviously. What else have you got?
But, my intention was simply to demonstrate gender bias by considering two men in a similar situation, the word of a reputable man against the word of a less reputable man. I guess I've demonstrated it...
What's interesting about that is also something left out of the other article, that the girl is a teenager. That makes me wonder how she was out drinking? It also makes me wonder then if these are the same cases. The descriptions of the crime is incredibly similar so I'd believe they are but it sounds like there very well might be more here than the press knows about yet.
> It should be either neither, or both, preferably the former
Entirely agree. Doesn't it contradict the notion of innocent until proved guilty to subject the suspect to a media circus? It's like getting doxxed just because a bunch of bloggers see a chance to get hits.
Why is Über even mentioned? How about some details on the manufacturer of the seat the driver was sitting on, maybe what barber he usues too? Regardless, this is tragic if true, and my heart goes out.
It's relevant. Uber are creating a network of unregulated cabs, and people have been voicing concerns over the consequences of that. It can happen with a regulated cab too, but it's probably a little more sensitive given that there are no regulations at all.
These concerns are not mine, and I'm not taking a position for or against Uber, I'm just pointing this out.
They still employ specially licensed driver just like cab companies. The regulations they don't have to deal with are things like availability and rate laws iirc.
Uber is mentioned because as one of the other commenters mentions licensing processes that existing cab companies use offer real benefit in terms of knowing about your driver population, screening them and controlling them.
The craiglist comparison is much more app than the the American Airlines one - a connection was made via this service with little oversight or regulation - that comes with benefits like higher availability and easier transactions, but it also can be risky.
Uber doesn't really vet their drivers properly, or at least that's what I found with a little Googling. Uber should take responsibility because this person put trust in their service and got raped. Now, it could be that Uber did vet the guy and he came up clean, but they should make that clear.
The driver was an Uber driver, the company supported him as a driver. Any event that occurs while he is doing his work as an Uber driver deserves to have Uber mentioned.
Did we read the same article? The driver in question worked for Capitol Limo, not Uber. Uber was simply software that Capitol Limo used and got paid through. Capitol Limo should have been mentioned much more than Capitol Limo was. Any event that occurs while he is doing work as a Capitol Limo driver deserves to have Capitol Limo mentioned at least Capitol Limo times Capitol Limo Capitol Limo
Despite what the headline on HN says, the article states in the very first sentence that he was not charged with anything, and released:
"District prosecutors on Thursday said they will not charge a limo driver who city police had arrested and accused of raping a 20-year-old customer outside her home in December."
Edit: Looks like the news article used to have that same headline; it's still what the page title says. Apparently, the police got it wrong in their press conference:
"Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, told The Washington Post that the office was not charging Anouar Habib Trabelsi, even as a top D.C. police commander was holding a news conference outside police headquarters announcing the criminal charge."
Attorneys. No matter what, make sure you have an attorney on retainer. People sue and get sued, and businesses have much more exposure to a lot more and varied types of people. If you're an even moderate business success, you'll be getting calls from lawyers or you'll be getting someone who tries to skirt your policy based on a loophole in your TOS/AUP/etc. Lawyer up. If you don't have the money for a lawyer to review your business with you, you're putting yourself and your customers at a risk that many would deem unacceptable.
You protect yourself by having proactive policies (e.g. Über will do well for themselves to show the extent of their background checks and driver training), business insurance and legal representation.
It seems there's an attitude that startups that are "disrupting" don't play by the same rules as "traditional" businesses. (See the many discussions re Uber and AirBnB as they relate to local regulations) Business can be a very scary place, with risk - even when it has nothing to do with your company, PR association can be a killer. Situations like this are careful reminders that it takes more than a MacBook Air, 5 Hour Energy, and six weeks at an incubator desk to launch a successful business.
Yes, lawyer up, but I think many of these comments are missing the true lesson here.
You need to take the proper precautions. Uber's screening of their drivers is laughable. Regulations don't exist solely to make your life miserable, and hopefully this incident, true or not, gives them the shock they need to understand their problem. While I appreciate what Uber's service is trying to accomplish, sacrificing safety is not the kind of "disruption" this industry needs.
Rape accusations, true or not, always end destroying the accused, specially because there are low penalties for false accusations, and the media is very fast in plastering the person name and photo everywhere.
Also, being a driver is kinda dangerous regarding that, I have some driver friends, and they all have the same rule: They don't pick up lone women, period, it might be raining, hurricane, dust storm, middle of the night, day, whatever, if she is a woman, and alone, they don't pick up them, ever.
It is because here in Brazil at least, is a very common scam to a women accuse a driver (be him professional, like a cabbie or Uber-like driver, or a volunteer that wants to help a hitchhiker) of rape, or make threats to accuse him unless he pays her something.
On this case in particular, I think the best is wait for what a judge and evidence has to say.
Why don't your driver friends just put a small camera in the cab? In the US this is fairly common in cabs, though not at all in towncars. It prevents a whole host of potential problems.
Here in Brazil this is not to avoid fare, fare is chump change, it is to extort, or "repent". One case that I know, the woman had consensual sex with the driver, and got pregnant, her boyfriend dumped her, and then she accused the driver of rape. Happily for the driver she was a bad liar and contradicted herself many times, so the cops dropped the case.
How in the world is this an "Uber" driver... Doesn't he work for a company that's using Uber? Find this a bit of a sensationalized smear on the service to associate him so closely with it.
"Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters: They also exist to protect the more vulnerable members of society. Back home in London (where such statistics are available), 11 women a month are attacked in unlicensed cabs, and unlicensed drivers are responsible for a horrifying 80 percent of all stranger rapes. If Uber doesn't have to follow licensing laws, then neither does any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to paint the word 'TAXI' on the side of his car, and start offering rides via the Internet. A disruptive CEO will shrug (and there's a foreshadowing word) and insist that it’s not his fault that such criminals exist."[1]
It appears this critic was right.
--
[1] http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/
--
Edit: added "It appears," which more accurately conveys my position.