
Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal - danso
https://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhernandez/lyft-uber-to-halt-operations-in-austin-after-vote
======
Lazare
I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what
jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem
entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar
transportation services should have them.

> Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true
> ridesharing to operate.

Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being
presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place",
but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive?
Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do
taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service?

I don't get it.

~~~
courtneypowell
The real issue for Uber and Lyft may be the fact that fingerprinting puts them
closer to needing to classify drivers as employees instead of contractors.
They could surely solve any friction around fingerprinting, but requiring
drivers to be classified as employees would put them out of business.
Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for
employees. IMO, they spent $8M on this local vote to delay the real issue as
long as possible.

~~~
koolba
> Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for
> employees.

Source? Financial services corporations fingerprint both their employees and
contractors. I've never seen a distinction in the process for either.

~~~
courtneypowell
Here's an example of contractors requiring fingerprinting in a highly
regulated environment pushing them to 'covered employee' status.

The requirement of fingerprinting does not in and of itself make some an
'employee' or vice versa, but there are precedents in Texas, like this
example, that could inch Uber even closer to this line.

[http://www.newcaneyisd.org/cms/lib5/TX01918142/Centricity/Do...](http://www.newcaneyisd.org/cms/lib5/TX01918142/Centricity/Domain/60/Independent%20Contractor%20Guidelines.pdf)

------
kinkdr
Why do they still call it ride sharing?

Just yesterday it was in the news that Uber drivers will now accept tips.

How is this anything else than a glorified app based taxi service? Maybe call
it freelancing taxi, but definitely not ride sharing.

On a positive note, I am glad to see Uber respecting the law for once!

~~~
fullshark
I find it to be a useful term to delineate the apps from traditional taxi
services in conversation but otherwise I agree entirely. Both firms likely
enjoy the term in press coverage because it makes them seem less threatening.

~~~
potatolicious
I use the term "ride hailing" for this, because for the most part the "sharing
economy" has no actual "sharing" whatsoever.

------
entitycontext
The efforts of Uber and Lyft over the last few months to rewrite the laws of
the City of Austin to their pleasing through a not-at-all-subtle application
of money, spam and propaganda went far, far beyond taste. Doesn’t matter if
you support the TNC companies or not (I mostly do), but they went _way_ too
far in their blatant attempts to subvert the democratic process of our city.
So, yeah, no thanks – don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I imagine they will have better luck corrupting the State of Texas legislature
to override the cities, but have fun doing this 49 more times.

------
Hondor
Don't forget who the biggest victims of background checks will be.
Unemployable ex-cons. Anyone who's been convicted at any time in their life
will have yet another door to employment shut in their face.

Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, New Zealand decided to ban anyone with a record of
sexual offending from being a taxi driver. That sounds good and safe to the
average Joe but one poor man, in his 50's I think, lost his job because he'd
been convicted as a teenager of having sex with his then-underage girlfriend.
They'd since been happily married and still were. Somehow that meant he was
considered unsafe to drive people around in a taxi.

Background checks are a blunt and harsh tool to re-punish people for unrelated
crimes.

~~~
jessriedel
There are lots of jobs besides jobs where strangers get into an automobile
alone with you. I am against vindictive employment and voting restrictions on
felons, and I'm open to having my mind changed by statistics like the
recidivism rate, but I think if you commit a sex crime you don't get to be a
taxi driver any more.

~~~
jacalata
Or you could have a statute of limitations on criminal background checks. A 30
year old conviction should be irrelevant to any employer.

------
hdmoore
Less people voted for Prop-1 than signed the petition to create it (39k vs
65k). Uber and Lyft spent over $8m and lost. Sources:
[https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/austin-group-
gathers...](https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/austin-group-
gathers-65103-signatures-overturn-ube/), [http://kxan.com/election-
results/](http://kxan.com/election-results/),
[http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-
politics/ube...](http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-
politics/uber-lyft-spending-now-at-81-million-in-prop-1-rac/nrD98/)

~~~
nekopa
Was the petition online?

~~~
yohoho22
No, all signatures were gathered in person.

------
uncletammy
The real story here is how Lyft and Uber harrassed their supporters away from
the polls.

I got 7 flyers in the mail, 3 unsolicited phone calls, multiple push
notifications and texts, and a visitor at my door all over a 4 day time
period. It can sure make you indifferent to them not getting their way.

Their aggressive marketing campaign turned attention away from the issues on
the ballot and they came off as an enormous bully who was clearly buying the
vote.

~~~
eridius
I take it you prefer to be more subtly influenced into voting the way others
want? Because either way you are being influenced by others to vote the way
they want you to.

~~~
AlexandrB
Would you be more likely to support someone's pet cause if they were yelling
at you about how they need your support or if they asked politely? Human
social structures are not based on rational decision making but on perception.
That's why politics exists.

------
mcotton
As an Austin resident I think the real lesson to learn is how poor of a job
Uber did of gaining supporters. I went from being a vocal supporter to an
almost hostile opponent based on their behavior.

They spent a reported $8 million in very confusing ads. They sent text
messages and push notifications to customers. All of this felt very
disingenuous and deceptive. I will be sad to see them go but they are their
own worst enemy right now.

~~~
natrius
It was a very bad campaign, which makes me suspect that they did it on
purpose. If they won this campaign, they'd have to win again in every other
city that tries this. If they lose, pull out of Austin for a while, and make
sure it's national news, other cities might think twice.

But it could just be incompetence.

~~~
csbrooks
They basically turned it into "here's the legislation we wrote, if you don't
pass it, we're leaving immediately", and then spammed everyone with text
messages, INCREDIBLE amounts of junk mail, and door-to-door canvasing. They
turned a lot of people off, big time. (Where's the story about that?)

I'm really hopeful some competitor can show up and eat their lunch, before
they come slinking back. The way they behaved turned me from a fan into
someone who actively distrusts them.

------
dizzystar
I worked on the Prop 1 campaign, and I'm not happy with this result.

At first, I thought Prop 1 would pass by a good margin, but I wasn't sure once
we started hitting the outer parts of the city, where public transportation
was clearly not an option. In contrast, the closer one lived to downtown, the
more likely it seemed to me that they were for Prop 1. In fact, many residents
in downtown don't even own a car. I felt the balance would shift on what
region was more likely to go vote. Living in Austin without a car is very
difficult, as the wait for a taxi can be over 30 minutes and a bus can be
basically non existent. Some taxi companies only serve certain regions. Uber
and Lyft usually takes five minutes.

Yes, it appeared to me that the constant barrage of flyers, canvassers, and
phone calls did upset some people, and that may well have turned people away
or even activated people who wouldn't have cared either way. I think that many
people thought the leaving threat was a bluff and they were more than willing
to call it.

In any case, I got a lot of exercise these past few weeks and got the
opportunity to see many parts of this amazing city.

I'm not sure about any argument about who can or cannot write petitions. The
entire point of petitions is to act as a way for the public to make a direct
vote without using the proxy of representatives. Every petition is backed by
money.

I hope Austin does something to improve the public transport and taxi service
without sacrificing the charm of the city. Try taking a cross town bus after
10pm on a Sunday night. You won't get very far and may end up sleeping on a
bench until 5:30 am. For me, this is the prevailing cost of this whole
situation.

Anyways, I'm not here to debate the merits of Prop 1. Just wanted to put in my
2 cents.

~~~
csbrooks
When you say you "work on the Prop 1 campaign", do you mean you were paid, or
volunteered?

Maybe "every petition is backed by money", but never this much, or so
blatantly from a single source. That's what bothered me about it. That, and
the dishonest way some ads spun it so that it looked like Prop 1 was actually
something you should vote for if you WANT more regulation for Uber and Lyft.
Yuck.

------
jensen123
I'm actually not familiar with criminal background checks, but they work like
this right: if you get caught for some crime, and spend time in prison, then
you will have a criminal record, and be discriminated against for the rest of
your life?

This seems very unreasonable to me. Perhaps some very narrow/limited
discrimination would make sense. Like if someone gets caught several times for
drunk driving, then perhaps that person should not be allowed to have a
drivers license for a long time afterwards. But if someone gets caught for
smuggling drugs, then that person should never be allowed to drive a taxi for
the rest of their life? That seems unreasonable.

Some groups, such as people with criminal records, sex workers, the mentally
ill, people who enjoy other drugs than alcohol and until recently homosexuals,
are treated very badly in some democracies. However, it's interesting that the
mainstream press never makes much fuss about such human rights violations in
democracies. In a democracy the majority has the power. Also, it's the goal of
the mainstream press to sell as many newspapers as possible, get as many page
views as possible etc. in order to make as much money as possible. Thus, they
need to appeal to the majority. Pointing out that the majority is behaving in
an unreasonable way will not endear them to said majority so they don't do
that much.

------
man5quid
[https://gist.github.com/tsmith512/2a369f897b84ec6949c4df0fa7...](https://gist.github.com/tsmith512/2a369f897b84ec6949c4df0fa74769dc)

for those wondering what the actual differences were. Frankly it was a good
move on the cities part. As a citizen I'm not sure. I relied on uber to get me
around when I was feeling lazy. That being said I don't think running
background checks through FBI and in-person face to face interviews for
drivers are too much to ask. When the companies posed this false dichotomy it
turned me off completely. Quite literally threatening the population with
disastrous consequences and questionable statistics didn't sit well with me.
Neither did the constant barrage of flyers hawking aforementioned stats.

------
jtchang
I am really confused at this article. Uber and Lyft don't want to operate in
areas that require fingerprint based background checks. I get it. Harder to
get drivers, more process, etc.

But isn't that just a cost of doing business? On the surface this seems
reasonable. Uber/Lyft are welcome to raise fares if the background checks
result in less drivers on the road. Subsequently the consumer is welcome to
not use Uber/Lyft if it gets too expensive.

Maybe I am missing something?

~~~
tristanj
It's not just about Austin, it's about every other market as well. If they
don't fight this here then other cities may implement similar fingerprinting
restrictions, citing Austin as example. Uber and Lyft have strong incentives
to contain this kind of legislation before it spreads.

------
FussyZeus
According to one of the top comments:

> This wasn't about the fingerprint background checks. This bill would've also
> required drivers to pay a yearly fee of $450/year to the city. It would've
> required a % fee of each ride to go the city. It would've mandated cars have
> logos for each service printed onto the side of the car. All these things
> make it harder to get drivers and increase the cost of ride sharing. This
> was a play by the Taxi companies to make ride sharing services as expensive
> and shitty (because of less drivers) as a cab service. Taxis have lost 30%
> of their business in Austin last 2 years and so they padded the current
> council's pockets during the 2014 elections to try and save their business.
> You can see how much they paid the council members by viewing public
> records. It's disgusting.

Interesting if true, I'm Googling around to see if I can find more information
on this.

~~~
gcek9
I noticed that as well. If that's the case, it makes the reaction by Uber &
Lyft seem much more reasonable. At the same time, it makes Uber & Lyft look
like they did a poor job educating the public on these parts of the argument.

I followed the #Prop1 trend closely last night and there wasn't anything
beyond fingerprinting mentioned by locals, news anchors, or even Uber / Lyft.

------
csours
Checking in from Austin. Both companies are framing this as "pausing"
operations. This is just another negotiation tactic, as far as I'm concerned.

------
mruniverse
Lyft could try to take market share by complying. They can even use it to
differentiate themselves. "The Safer Ride-Share Company!", "We Know Who are
Drivers Are", etc.

~~~
natrius
It's probably a bad gamble. Lyft wants to catch up to Uber, but they also need
to grow fast enough that upstarts can't unseat them from second place.
Accepting regulations that slow their growth is a bad deal for them, too.

~~~
iopq
it also sets a dangerous precedent, where governments can restrict Uber to the
point that Uber quit the market and expect Lyft to come and fill the void

------
_delirium
What I'll be watching for: whether a competitor (existing or startup) will
exploit the two big companies' absence from the Austin ride-hailing market to
gain a foothold. Unlike cities that have banned ride-hailing, Austin has made
clear that it's legal, but with certain requirements. Given that it's legal
_and_ the two biggest national companies have entirely ceded the market, it
could be an attractive place for a competitor to get a start.

------
JustUhThought
Austin-ite and Texan here.

Uber sent a text to it's drivers the Friday before the vote that was a thinly
veiled threat that they should vote or lose their pay check when Uber pulled
out of Austin.

That sort of strong arming in our electoral process, yeah, never gonna go over
well.

The proposition, if passed, would _override_ regulations put in place by
elected representatives. The proposition failed by popular vote in an
election. Uber et al out spent their conpition several times over. The
commercials they ran were so plainly attempting to confuse the issue that it
was insulting. Also, the commercials were ran more frequently during the
window for early voting. There were almost zero local voices speaking on
behalf of both community and in favor of prop 1.

All arguments in favor of prop 1 where, imo, specious. If it causes on-
boarding to become too slow, well then that is only a deal breaker if they
were not yet at the critical mass to be profitable; not so. Fingerprinting is
not prohibitively expensive. Uber and Lyft operate in other markets where this
is a requirement. And at the end of the day, twice now, the electorate has
expressed its position on the issue.

Living in Austin during this campaign, it felt like being in the middle of a
proxy war.

Imho, Uber can't stand having terms dictated to them. Any terms beyond their
terms are too restrictive. The citizens of Austin were simply pawns in their
larger game of market domination.

With all due respect, from the city of Austin, from deep in the heart of
Texas, Uber, if you don't want to work with us, you know where the door is.

------
dctoedt
The same fight is brewing here in Houston, with Uber threatening to leave [1]
if the city council doesn't repeal the fingerprinting requirement. Our local
paper, which consistently promotes and celebrates entrepreneurship, came out
strongly in favor of the city regulations [2].

[1] [http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Uber-
thre...](http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Uber-threatens-to-
leave-Houston-7379011.php)

[2]
[http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/E...](http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-
Uber-threat-7388769.php)

------
jrnichols
"Drivers will have to undergo fingerprint-based background checks done by the
city.."

I would have voted "yes" because of that language. Fingerprint based
background checks are great to see if you have a previous criminal record, but
many many people have no criminal records up to the moment where they get
arrested for the crime they committed.

Also, how much would the background checks have cost? How often? I'm a
Paramedic in the state of Texas, and my employer requires me to have a "City
of Dallas Ambulance Operator" permit, even though I do not work within the
City of Dallas at all. The city has found this whole "background check"
process to be a cash cow. I went through a background check for school. i went
through another one for my state certification. I went through yet another one
for my employer, and now I need to do an annual one for just the City of
Dallas. It used to be $17 for a 3 year card, but now it's something like
$40/year. Oh, and you're required to show proof of a defensive driving course.
Last time I went, they were refusing to accept EVOC (Emergency Vehicle
Operators Course, designed for, well, operators of emergency vehicles) and
instead requiring the same defensive driving course that people use to get out
of a traffic violation. Oh, and we're in the same boat as taxi drivers, limo
drivers, tow truck drivers, etc.... what happens when the next city over
decides they want a piece of that pie too? Would I have to get a permit for
Dallas, Mesquite, Plano, Garland, Frisco, etc? Why would something like this
need to be a city by city issue and not something that the state could handle?
It's not like Dallas and Houston running the same fingerprints are going to
get different information. (Well, they shouldn't..)

The regulations seem like they're just opening too many doors that they
shouldn't.

~~~
jrnichols
I forgot to mention that the fine for not having this permit has gone up from
$250 to $361.

------
argonaut
Sounds like a business opportunity for a startup: we will operate in
compliance in areas where Uber/Lyft won't.

~~~
rumcajz
Would you invest in a startup which can be destroyed by its competition at
will, i.e. by Uber agreeing to do the checks? Not gonna fly.

~~~
nefitty
How about investing in a startup to battle the entrenched taxi interests, who
seem to have just won a major battle?

~~~
rumcajz
And then losing your investment when you win the battle and Uber moves in? Why
would anyone do that?

~~~
theli0nheart
Because you could make a lot of money in the interim.

------
bdjdjdbeie
I was in an Uber last night in San Francisco. The driver had just started
driving for the ride sharing company. During my 20 minutes in the car, the
driver was flirting with the other passenger in the pool, and she was visibly
uncomfortable. After dropping her off, he told me how he spent 13 years in
prison, how he just got out, and how he "knew the Menendez brothers while in
the pen". All of this was completely unsolicited btw.

Now I'm a big fan of uber and lyft, and generally feel safe taking it but an
experience like that will make you reconsider.

~~~
pxlpshr
Your first and only contribution to HackerNews is this comment. Your story
seems a little big fish...

------
codecamper
So are Uber & Lyft in cahoots now?

No need to feel like there is competition when you have billions behind you
(and hence a small pool of people who regularly go to lunch together?)

------
Overtonwindow
This doesn't make any sense, something is not adding up here. I absolutely do
not see a problem with drivers submitting to fingerprint background checks.
Why is this an issue?? Is it cost? Uber is a massively profitable company, why
do they fight so hard to pay their drivers a reasonable wage, and work with
communities??

------
pessimizer
A victory for people who neither have smartphones nor extra money when it
rains. If taxi services are generally to be unregulated and unmarked, people
will eventually start being robbed, raped, kidnapped, and killed by random
people with a phone number.

------
clamprecht
Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made
cheaper? Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business?

Edit: Ah yes, [https://checkr.com/](https://checkr.com/)

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be
> made cheaper?

The logistics and costs are both high. Honestly I'm all for background checks
but fingerprinting is completely unrealistic. There are a lot of on-demand
services nowadays some of which drive you places, others go into your home. I
can't imagine Uber and Lyft will be the only ones required to do
fingerprinting eventually.

Someone has to come up with a better way of doing this, remotely, otherwise
it's simply not realistic in my opinion.

> Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business? Edit: Ah
> yes, [https://checkr.com/](https://checkr.com/)

Yeah but checkr doesn't do fingerprinting either.

~~~
jevinskie
I don't see why fingerprinting has to be such a hassle. It wasn't for me. I
was able to schedule, online, an appointment with my sheriff's department, get
digitally fingerprinted, and background checked all within five days for under
$50.

Granted, the privacy aspect is the ever-present issue.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> I was able to schedule, online, an appointment with my sheriff's department,
> get digitally fingerprinted, and background checked all within five days for
> under $50.

I think you just described a good part of the hassle. Not everyone driving for
Uber / Lyft have $50 to use for fingerprinting services and a similar cost,
even heavily discounted, represents a significant cost to the companies if
they're covering it. Then you have the whole part where, currently, anyone can
pick up people and provide lots of supply for the customer demand but if they
all have to wait that introduces a huge amount of friction (so less drivers).

Granted this is just in the city of Austin so it's possible to handle it
without great difficulty. But if this were to apply across the nation? That
would be devastating for the businesses.

~~~
laurentoget
People who drive for Lyft/Uber need a newer car with insurance and
registration. The cost and regulatory burden of getting a background check is
not significant in comparison to a car payment.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
You need to have that regardless to drive. You're missing the big part of Uber
and Lyft's model: anyone who wants extra cash can sign up and start driving
people. If someone wants extra cash for a weekend then realized they need to
go get fingerprinting done which could take a week then they're a missed
opportunity.

------
ilurkedhere
Looks like [https://www.getme.com/](https://www.getme.com/) is sticking around

------
nzoschke
Have taxis gotten better at mobile dispatch in Austin?

~~~
jdubs
Of course not, why would they need to get better when they were betting the
proposition would fail.

------
randommodnar
Good. Uber can suck a giant dick for their lawbreaking business practices and
their treatment of drivers.

------
sumobob
can't they just run their drivers through the goodhire api or something?

------
rando_2458976
Regarding the fingerprint background checks - there _is_ an enormous business
opportunity here for someone willing to navigate a heavily regulated
government market.

In California, criminal records are stored at the state level in a biometric
database, based on fingerprints. If you wanted to get your state-level
criminal record, you'd have to get your fingers scanned at by a "LiveScan"
operator. LiveScan devices are electronic fingerprint scanners (and associated
software) that go through a certification process before they can be used to
submit valid fingerprints to the state DOJ. The devices and software must meet
standards set by the FBI and the DOJ. LiveScan software must be go to the DOJ
through regulated data exchanges--a very limited number of privately run
services that electronically relay the fingerprint data to the DOJ (not sure,
but I think it's either SFTP or an XML-based API over a VPN). Anyone who wants
to hook up LiveScan devices must get registered as an approved vendor, and
anyone who wants take fingerprints with those devices must go through a
fingerprint certification process.

In short, fingerprint background check requests in CA go through a set of
regulated private service vendors. If you pull your own state criminal record
in CA, you're going to pay $15-50 to the LiveScan vendor + $25 to the DOJ for
the lookup fee, and then you'll wait ~1 week to get a paper copy of your
record in the mail.

Maybe some entrepreneur could create an umbrella company, become an approved
vendor and data exchange, and then sell small affordable FBI-approved
fingerprint scanners that can plug into mobile phones, and sign up people to
be certified fingerprint rollers, and then let contractors collect
fingerprints anywhere and get paid for it, as well as sell better devices to
law enforcement agencies.

I'm not sure how big the market is, but right now there are ~1 million+ people
in CA eligible to reduce their old low-level felonies to misdemeanors under
Prop 47 until November 2017, and getting these fingerprint background checks
is often necessary to that process (and is one of the biggest barriers).

1 out of 4 adults in the US has a criminal record. And pulling these state-
level records is routine for getting professional licenses, certain government
jobs, and jobs involving vulnerable populations.

How are these fingerprint records different from private background checks?

Most private background check companies pull data from a variety of sources,
such as county-level court records, DMV records, and FBI. By law, these
companies are not allowed to share certain types of information (like certain
types of convictions over 7 years old, etc.) Keep in mind that false names and
aliases are common, and county clerks can't pull records based on
fingerprints.

The state biometric record is built from county-level records submitted by law
enforcement and courts. It includes every arrest, prosecution, hearing,
sentencing, and all the registries (for sex offenses or controlled
substances). It includes both "strong links" (biometric matches, regardless of
given name) and "weak links" (non-biometric matches based on multiple identity
matches, such as given name, DOB, ssn). Fingerprints for biometric matching
are typically taken by law enforcement and corrections departments during
booking. Non-biometric records are often submitted by courts, for tracking
convictions and sentencing.

The state record is only allowed to be accessed by particular types of
"authorized agencies" and only for particular purposes, and they are only
allowed to see certain kinds of records. Telling Uber & Lyft to put their
drivers through fingerprint background checks might be analogous to saying
that the drivers will be responsible for serving people who may be easily
victimized and therefore (like other professional licensing requirements)
Uber/Lyft's contractors should go through an authorized licensing agency and
do a biometric lookup of any contact they may have had with law enforcement.

I imagine that forcing all the drivers to go through the LiveScan service +
wait time would add a huge cost and time burden for signing up new drivers
that is currently difficult or impossible to automate (unlike checkr, which
has an API).

FWIW here are some links for more info: \- Checkr's county court fees listing:
[https://checkr.com/pricing/additional-pricing-
information/](https://checkr.com/pricing/additional-pricing-information/) \-
CA DOJ Request for LiveScan service:
[http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/forms/BCII_8016.pdf](http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/forms/BCII_8016.pdf)
\- NIST Fingerprint testing standards
[http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/fingerprint/NIST%20Finge...](http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/fingerprint/NIST%20Fingerprint%20Testing%20Standards%20V2%2002282013.pdf)
\- FBI Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification
[https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis/efts_70.pdf](https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis/efts_70.pdf)
\- DCJS NY RFP for LiveScan services (yay procurement! /s)
[http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/rfp/livescan/livescanrfp_f...](http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/rfp/livescan/livescanrfp_final.pdf)
\- CA DOJ Become a LiveScan Operator
[http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators](http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators)

------
cpher
I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason
in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals
and colors of the car.

I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into
his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in
the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD
think when white guys get in the backs of gangbanger's cars (yes, my driver
was nice but sketchy, and his car was exactly the mid-90s low-riding Pontiac
you see around here getting busted all the time). I felt like I was his "ride"
while he circled the southside between drug pickups. It gave him an "out."

On the flip side, had an awesome middle aged white woman take us from A to B
on the northside of Chicago. She was doing it as a part-timer and super nice.

I guess my point is that maybe with taxi companies you at least _could
/should_ have a hiring/interview process? I'll plead ignorance to the
Uber/Lyft process, but is there even an interview? It's just hit or miss in
Chicago.

~~~
YuriNiyazov
Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object
that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

~~~
cpher
Yuri, after seeing these comments, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sorry for being angry, but I'm sorry for getting personal. I'm sure
you're needing some help with something local to your community, unless you
want to start a thread of how to help kids on the south side of Chicago get
into this community.

~~~
YuriNiyazov
Apology accepted, as well as the agreement to disagree as well. FWIW, I've
lived in some very choice parts of Oakland and Brooklyn throughout my life, so
I am familiar with the environment, and the need for safety. The hard work in
normalizing relations is exactly that: giving people that set off your spidey
sense an opportunity for honest work.

