# Uber CEO says fingerprint-based background checks can be discriminatory



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Checking criminal backgrounds by using fingerprint records could be "discriminatory," Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said, because local police records might leave out whether someone who was arrested for a crime was ultimately convicted or not.

Kalanick's comments Tuesday at the Boston College CEO Club come as states, including Massachusetts, consider legislation that could force Uber and similar ride-hailing services to fingerprint their drivers. It also comes as Uber plans to add millions of drivers to its system in the US next year, vastly increasing the number of drivers who might pick up someone for a ride across town.

"In many states, the vast majority of the files they have only have the arrest record. They don't have convictions. So if you've been arrested, you then can't work. And we find that to be particularly discriminatory," Kalanick said. "So then the question is, can you find ways to make sure that folks coming onto the system are safe while making sure that you're not discriminating against people?"

Uber has become one of the most prominent private tech companies in the world by seeking to build the 21st-century equivalent of a global taxi service enabled by smartphones.

Since it was founded in 2009, San Francisco-based Uber has raised more than $8 billion from investors who have reportedly valued the company at more than $50 billion. Despite those staggering figures, Kalanick recently said that the company is "nowhere near" going public.

Kalanick's appearance Tuesday comes as Uber's increasingly popular and ubiquitous service faces a long list of regulatory and legal tie-ups in Boston and beyond.

In October, the company said that some 1.75 million people had taken 28 million trips in the area during the past four years. Drivers in Boston have earned about $200 million in the past year, Uber said.

But the company has clashed publiclywith Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, who wants Uber to fingerprint its drivers when it performs background checks, ensure its drivers' cars are properly inspected, and prominently label cars.

Uber has enlisted former Boston police commissioner Ed Davis to help bolster its own safety efforts. Davis, who originally was advising Uber as a consultant, was added to the company's official US Safety Advisory Board last week.

Uber has said that its background checks are sufficient without fingerprinting, which it contends would be too logistically difficult to impose on its roster of drivers.

But critics have pointed to cases such as the arrest of Bryant Gilbert of Boston, a former Uber driver with a long record of driving offenses who was accused of dragging two police officers with his SUV earlier this month.

Uber said that it removed Gilbert from its system after learning of his criminal background. The Boston Police Department, which regulates taxicabs in the city, does not presently require cab drivers to be fingerprinted.

The state Legislature recently adjourned for the year without passing bills that would regulate ride-hailing services like Uber and its top competitor, Lyft.

Some of those bills would require background checks and commercial insurance policies for the services' drivers. A competing proposal from Governor Charlie Baker would implement more state supervision but allow the companies to operate much as they currently do.

Uber also is battling a major civil lawsuit from prominent Boston labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who accuses the company of illegally treating its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.









John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
Uber CEO Travis Kalanick speaks at the Boston College CEO Club lunch at the Boston Harbor Hotel.
And the company is fighting a federal lawsuit from Boston's largest taxi company, which claims that Uber is violating state and city rules and deceiving customers.

Kalanick said Uber's quick growth would continue, with plans to add millions of new drivers in the US next year. He said that could help many more people improve their income, even though he noted that half of the drivers in Uber's on-demand mobile car-hiring service work less than 10 hours a week.

"We're looking at the millions of drivers, literally multiple millions of drivers, that we're bringing onto Uber next year in the US," Kalanick said. "It's a situation where you can really deal with the under-employment problem, the unemployment problem and wage stagnation for the average person that maybe just wants to get a leg up."

http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015...ased-background-checks-can-be-discriminatory/


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Wow!!*
_
Kalanick said Uber's quick growth would continue, with plans to add millions of new drivers in the US next year. He said that could help many more people improve their income, even though he noted that half of the drivers in Uber's on-demand mobile car-hiring service work less than 10 hours a week.

"We're looking at the millions of drivers, literally multiple millions of drivers, that we're bringing onto Uber next year in the US," Kalanick said. "It's a situation where you can really deal with the under-employment problem, the unemployment problem and wage stagnation for the average person that maybe just wants to get a leg up."_


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

I'm calling total bs on police records not showing convictions. I got arrested by small town USA police for driving on a suspended license. Got a good lawyer and had the charge drop down from misdemeanor to just pay the damn ticket. When I went for my cab permit, I was asked if i have ever been arrested and regardless if it lead to a conviction. I said yes and wrote about the reason for the arrest and the outcome. The data that came back from the police department confirmed what i mentioned that i got arrested but had the associated charge dropped. Since I didn't have a misdemeanor, I was cleared for my cab permit.

What Travis just said is an outright lie or the very least grand ignorance.


----------



## SafeT (Nov 23, 2015)

Add millions of new drivers? What is he smoking?


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

If they make drivers register for finger printing the county will know Uber is saturating the streets with thousands and thousands of drivers and causing traffic confession. This will also call for an impact study and environmental study which Uber might have to foot the bill plus face public backlash from all sectors of the community. 
If you think your saving a buck taking Uber and there's 2000 cars are idling how is that saving anything?!


----------



## Backdash (Jan 28, 2015)

We are all fingerprinted in NYC, taxi, livery FHV and more. If there is a hit with the fingerprint check you are either interviewed for more info or denied a license. 
It all depends on the charge and circumstances.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

I have to agree with Travis on this; fingerprinting is overly invasive and not even remotely appropriate for the "arrangement" Uber has with its drivers. Extensive background checks can be done without collecting biometric data from every applicant.

If Uber were forced to require it, the SRF would go through the roof.


----------



## Backdash (Jan 28, 2015)

supernaut said:


> If Uber were forced to require it, the SRF would go through the roof.


You're probably right about that.
It could be setup that the applicant pays the fingerprint service a one time fee.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Backdash said:


> You're probably right about that.
> It could be setup that the applicant pays the fingerprint service a one time fee.


The current background checks they use could've been set up the same way, (never dealt with another corp that expects its employees to pay for their own background checks). Uber would rather pick our pockets _forever_ ~$1.60+/ride. Why would you think they'd be more reasonable, (and honest), with any new costs?


----------



## rtaatl (Jul 3, 2014)

Backdash said:


> We are all fingerprinted in NYC, taxi, livery FHV and more. If there is a hit with the fingerprint check you are either interviewed for more info or denied a license.
> It all depends on the charge and circumstances.


I wish more cities would put Uber in check like NYC....it's probably the only place where and UberX driver is truly an independent contractor.


----------



## Backdash (Jan 28, 2015)

rtaatl said:


> I wish more cities would put Uber in check like NYC....it's probably the only place where and UberX driver is truly an independent contractor.


We are no more independent contractors than any other Uber driver. What we are is regulated by the TLC. They dictate how we operate that's all. The key word there is DICTATE. It's not a pretty thing.


----------



## rtaatl (Jul 3, 2014)

Backdash said:


> We are no more independent contractors than any other Uber driver. What we are is regulated by the TLC. They dictate how we operate that's all. The key word there is DICTATE. It's not a pretty thing.


Damn, so even with licensure and real commercial insurance you can't take clients outside the app....no bueno


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

Kalanick is a Liar. Uber is a thief. Its just that simple. 
If it costs or slows Uber they are not doing it. PERIOD!


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Backdash said:


> We are all fingerprinted in NYC, taxi, livery FHV and more. If there is a hit with the fingerprint check you are either interviewed for more info or denied a license.
> It all depends on the charge and circumstances.


Drivers are finger printed in Houston TX market as well. City of Dallas requires a additional background check besides Ubers for their permit to drive.


----------



## Tyler Durden SF (Nov 26, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> I'm calling total bs on police records not showing convictions. I got arrested by small town USA police for driving on a suspended license. Got a good lawyer and had the charge drop down from misdemeanor to just pay the damn ticket. When I went for my cab permit, I was asked if i have ever been arrested and regardless if it lead to a conviction. I said yes and wrote about the reason for the arrest and the outcome. The data that came back from the police department confirmed what i mentioned that i got arrested but had the associated charge dropped. Since I didn't have a misdemeanor, I was cleared for my cab permit.
> 
> What Travis just said is an outright lie or the very least grand ignorance.


That probably didn't come from LAPD. Most likely if it did they pulled it from the county records or sheriffs dept. police dept don't normally keep conviction records. That's usually a county thing.


----------



## Tyler Durden SF (Nov 26, 2015)

Finger print me all you want. DOJ will probably beat you to death when you show up with them.

Not this guy again. Geez...just call us next time.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

supernaut said:


> I have to agree with Travis on this; fingerprinting is overly invasive and not even remotely appropriate for the "arrangement" Uber has with its drivers. Extensive background checks can be done without collecting biometric data from every applicant.
> 
> If Uber were forced to require it, the SRF would go through the roof.


What kind of extensive background check are you referring to thats as effective as finger printed background checks? City of Houston requires them & threw 100's of drivers off platform that passed Uber's background checks. City of Dallas requires a additional background check besides Ubers for their permit. Uber does not want finger printed background checks cause it eliminates them hiring drivers with certain criminal backgrounds.


----------



## Backdash (Jan 28, 2015)

supernaut said:


> (never dealt with another corp that expects its employees to pay for their own background checks).


Very true but we are not employees


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Txchick said:


> What kind of extensive background check are you referring to thats as effective as finger printed background checks? City of Houston requires them & threw 100's of drivers off platform that passed Uber's background checks. City of Dallas requires a additional background check besides Ubers for their permit. Uber does not want finger printed background checks cause it eliminates them hiring drivers with certain criminal backgrounds.


I'm not saying that non-biometric background checks are as effective, or more effective, but they are most certainly less invasive and costly.

I'm fairly cynical, but not enough so to believe that Uber's objection to this is based on the desire to hire more criminals. It's a matter of the expense, that's it.

I'm not a fan of overregulation, either. One of the things that the cities requiring fingerprinting have in common is that they're run by statist ******nozzles, and have a less friendly business climate.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Backdash said:


> Very true but we are not employees


Yes, that's just Uber's way to control us like employees, in many respects, but sleaze out of having to provide benefits. Stand up corporations don't require people to pay for their own background checks as _true_ independent contractors, either.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

SafeT said:


> Addmillions of new drivers? What is he smoking?


He want to get all new driver cause a new drivers pays 5 percent more commision.And a new drive will believe the brainwashing he say


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

Does he consider random drug test discriminatory also?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

supernaut said:


> I'm not saying that non-biometric background checks are as effective, or more effective


How Uber's & Lyft's Online BG Checks are deficient:
*Ongoing Poll | Fingerprint Background Checks & Drug Tests*


supernaut said:


> Uber's objection to this is based on the desire to hire more criminals. It's a matter of the expense, that's it.


Uber's "line in the sand" opposition to Biometric (fingerprint based) BG Checks is primarily based in it's need to overcome the high Driver Churn Rate. Fingerprint BG Checks would require Drivers to physically go to a BG Check vendor facility.
*Uber Finally Admits The Obvious | Uber Has A Driver Retention Problem*

_"We're looking at the millions of drivers, literally multiple millions of drivers, that we're bringing onto Uber next year in the US," Kalanick said._


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

SlowBoat said:


> Does he consider random drug test discriminatory also?


Whatever the reason, I'm glad they don't do it. No, not because I do any drugs apart from caffeine and nicotine, but because compulsory drug screening is fascist, and I think it's ridiculous that just about every entry-level position now requires it. Unfortunately, most people don't think twice about what a gross violation of privacy it is and the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset that drives it.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

LA Cabbie said:


> I'm calling total bs on police records not showing convictions. I got arrested by small town USA police for driving on a suspended license. Got a good lawyer and had the charge drop down from misdemeanor to just pay the damn ticket. When I went for my cab permit, I was asked if i have ever been arrested and regardless if it lead to a conviction. I said yes and wrote about the reason for the arrest and the outcome. The data that came back from the police department confirmed what i mentioned that i got arrested but had the associated charge dropped. Since I didn't have a misdemeanor, I was cleared for my cab permit.
> 
> What Travis just said is an outright lie or the very least grand ignorance.


POST # 3/@LACabbie: Pshaw! Only the
Best for Our Leader,
"Kid Kakanicky". His Ignorance is...

☆ ☆ ☆ G R A N D I O S E ! ☆ ☆ ☆

Bison: Drumroll. Fanfare.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

You can do a federal background check WITHOUT finger printing. Its a needless bureaucratic layer. Want to force an outside agency to audit the background checks to make sure their being done properly? Fine. Want to pass a regulation that makes sure that drivers can't stay logged in and driving for more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period to help make sure people aren't driving half sleep, cool - even though I more than once napped for a few hours during the dead time after the bar crowd cleared and the morning airport runs. Finger printing though is NOT needed.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Wow!!*
> _
> Kalanick said Uber's quick growth would continue, with plans to add millions of new drivers in the US next year. He said that could help many more people improve their income, even though he noted that half of the drivers in Uber's on-demand mobile car-hiring service work less than 10 hours a week.
> 
> "We're looking at the millions of drivers, literally multiple millions of drivers, that we're bringing onto Uber next year in the US," Kalanick said. "It's a situation where you can really deal with the under-employment problem, the unemployment problem and wage stagnation for the average person that maybe just wants to get a leg up."_


POST # 2/chi1cabby: I just KNEW that
those Pie-in-the-Sky
Driver Quantities would have you Scream-
ing "OBJECTION!"

The "Hardest Number/s" that THIS UNGU-
LATE has seen was either 400K or "up to
600K Drivers" in the U.S.A.

These claims
of "Millions more..." are Truly Delusional,
further reinforcing my Contention that
Travis is BiPolar and at the Extreme End
of a Protracted Hypomanic Episode.

Bison: SO many reasons-2-Despise-T.K.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

BurgerTiime said:


> If they make drivers register for finger printing the county will know Uber is saturating the streets with thousands and thousands of drivers and causing traffic confession. This will also call for an impact study and environmental study which Uber might have to foot the bill plus face public backlash from all sectors of the community.
> If you think your saving a buck taking Uber and there's 2000 cars are idling how is that saving anything?!


POST # /BurgerTiime: E X C E L L E N T
P O I N T ! That could be
THE REASON for AntiPersonnel LLC's
footdragging and time wasting "objection-
izing". Just More "Bottomless Duplicity"
as chi1cabby would categorize it!

Bison: "Hoof Prints" anyone? TeeHee × 3!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

BurgerTiime said:


> If they make drivers register for finger printing the county will know Uber is saturating the streets with thousands and thousands of drivers and causing traffic confession. This will also call for an impact study and environmental study which Uber might have to foot the bill plus face public backlash from all sectors of the community.
> If you think your saving a buck taking Uber and there's 2000 cars are idling how is that saving anything?!


POST # 5/BurgerTiime: The traffic
"Confession" is
that #[F]Jber causes Traffic CONGESTION!

Bison:"I'll take"Scofflaws" for $1000, Alex."


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Tyler Durden SF said:


> Finger print me all you want. DOJ will probably beat you to death when you show up with them.
> 
> Not this guy again. Geez...just call us next time.


POST # 16/TylerDurden: YOU...are a
Real Life Badass...or...
just lots of Security Clearances-4-Ur-Job?

Bison:"Damn Your Questions, Haberdasher!"
O.K., I'll tell him...."asking for a friend".


----------



## sarah ava (Nov 18, 2015)

Due to security reason finger print based background is must for every one.


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

supernaut said:


> Whatever the reason, I'm glad they don't do it. No, not because I do any drugs apart from caffeine and nicotine, but because compulsory drug screening is fascist, and I think it's ridiculous that just about every entry-level position now requires it. Unfortunately, most people don't think twice about what a gross violation of privacy it is and the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset that drives it.


There is no preponderance of innocent before proven guilty in private enterprise - it's a constitutional guarantee with regards to the way we are treated by our government as a matter of law - not as a condition of employment or partnership. Just like free speech - *government *can't thwart it (though they do), but a forum such as this can censor away.

Drug tests are a great idea, and quite frankly, I wish every driver were checked twice a year. There's nothing constitutionally wrong with that at all. Don't want to play? Don't be a partner. The choice is yours. You can't demand to become a partner without submitting to their agreement.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

sarah ava said:


> Due to security reason finger print based background is must for every one.


Why? HOW is this safer from a regular federal background check? Why not create a DNA database of drivers next then? What extra security is provided by taking all drivers finger prints which is going to do nothing except create an even more massive database of mostly poor people?


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

what a joke. Yea, unemployment is going to be solved driving your car to the ground while Uber pockets a huge percentage and invests that money in assuring you earn as little as possible, while they grow, eventually replacing you with driverless technology they're developing using the equity from your assets. Yea, we should definitely take advice from this noble character. He's not at all a self seeking maniac.


----------



## Tyler Durden SF (Nov 26, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 16/TylerDurden: YOU...are a
> Real Life Badass...or...
> just lots of Security Clearances-4-Ur-Job?
> 
> ...


Dont both go hand in hand?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Uber's Online Background Checks don't flag Drivers with Court Mandated Breathalyzers.

*UberX Driver with Court-Mandated Breathalyzer
























*


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

Let's see here, how many people throughout history were accused but never convicted of horrendous crimes? OJ, Casey Anthony, even Al Capone was never convicted for most of the crimes he committed. These could be bad examples based on personal opinion but I think you get my point.

Just because one was never convicted doesn't mean he/she isn't guilty and should be left alone driving someone who could possibly be passed out in the back of their vehicle. Pretty distasteful words by TK.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> Let's see here, how many people throughout history were accused but never convicted of horrendous crimes? OJ, Casey Anthony, even Al Capone was never convicted for most of the crimes he committed. These could be bad examples based on personal opinion but I think you get my point.
> 
> Just because one was never convicted doesn't mean he/she isn't guilty and should be left alone driving someone who could possibly be passed out in the back of their vehicle. Pretty distasteful words by TK.


So are you saying that anyone even accused of a crime should be treated as guilty of it even if their found innocent in a court of law?


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

D Town said:


> So are you saying that anyone even accused of a crime should be treated as guilty of it even if their found innocent in a court of law?


Not at all. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty but just because you have been proven innocent does not mean you are in fact not guilty. My point remains that there are individuals out there who just because they were never convicted in the court of law, does not mean they were innocent of their crimes.

Example: If a taxi driver is arrested for sexually assaulting a passenger and there is clear evidence that the assault occurred but for whatever reason (someone mishandled evidence, passenger not wanting to testify or whatever else), the charges are dropped, does that mean the driver is innocent and should continue working for the taxi company? Should the taxi company be able to rightfully terminate his contract and if so, should he be able to move on to work for Uber or any other taxi company just because he was only arrested but never convicted? While he might be innocent in the court of law, it does not mean he is innocent in the eyes of the accuser, employer or the public.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> Not at all. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty but just because you have been proven innocent does not mean you are in fact not guilty. My point remains that there are individuals out there who just because they were never convicted in the court of law, does not mean they were innocent of their crimes.
> 
> Example: If a taxi driver is arrested for sexually assaulting a passenger and there is clear evidence that the assault occurred but for whatever reason (someone mishandled evidence, passenger not wanting to testify or whatever else), the charges are dropped, does that mean the driver is innocent and should continue working for the taxi company? Should the taxi company be able to rightfully terminate his contract and if so, should he be able to move on to work for Uber or any other taxi company just because he was only arrested but never convicted? While he might be innocent in the court of law, it does not mean he is innocent in the eyes of the accuser, employer or the public.


Or it could be that the woman lied and was caught. The entire POINT of having a criminal justice system is to sort out the guilty and the innocent. If you're guilty you go to jail. If not you walk. What system are you proposing exactly? Because if there is actual evidence of a crime - enough to actually convict the suspect - then the criminal justice system takes care of that. You want a system that...goes on, "Yeah, he PROBABLY did it"? I can't even begin to list the problems with that. What criteria are we basing this guilt on? The guy is creepy? The guy makes inappropriate comments? What besides actual hard evidence - that the criminal justice system would have already used to put the guy in prison - are you suggesting we use to determine someone needs to be punished?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber CEO on the future of traffic in Boston and seven other takeaways from his speech*

*On long-term goals locally: *
_"We envision a world where there's no more traffic in Boston in five years" and "If you imagine you're on top of one of these skyscrapers and looking down at all the cars, we want all those cars to be Ubers because if they were, the transportation system would be more efficient. That's how we think about it."_


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> You can do a federal background check WITHOUT finger printing. Its a needless bureaucratic layer. Want to force an outside agency to audit the background checks to make sure their being done properly? Fine. Want to pass a regulation that makes sure that drivers can't stay logged in and driving for more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period to help make sure people aren't driving half sleep, cool - even though I more than once napped for a few hours during the dead time after the bar crowd cleared and the morning airport runs. Finger printing though is NOT needed.


Then how does anyone know the driver is who they say they are?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> Then how does anyone know the driver is who they say they are?


I don't know about Florida but I was not finger printed to get my drivers licence and the state doesn't seem to worry if I'm really me. On a federal level, you don't need fingerprints to get a passport either.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> I don't know about Florida but I was not finger printed to get my drivers licence and the state doesn't seem to worry if I'm really me. On a federal level, you don't need fingerprints to get a passport either.


That's great, but doesn't answer the question.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> That's great, but doesn't answer the question.


You want me to solve the world wide problem of identity theft in a forum post? Do I get a massive cash prize if I can come up with a system? Do tell me how a PAX knows that the person they are getting into the car with is the driver? Someone with a record could ask a friend to sign up for him and then just hand him the phone to do Uber runs. How do you solve that?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> You want me to solve the world wide problem of identity theft in a forum post? Do I get a massive cash prize if I can come up with a system? Do tell me how a PAX knows that the person they are getting into the car with is the driver? Someone with a record could ask a friend to sign up for him and then just hand him the phone to do Uber runs. How do you solve that?


Requiring fingerprints would solve that. I don't recall asking you to solve any problems. 
You know people who are willing to drive their car around and pick up passengers while I get the money? Send them my way.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> Requiring fingerprints would solve that.


How? Does the pax check to make sure the drivers finger prints match the ones on file?


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Demon said:


> Requiring fingerprints would solve that.


Not necessarily, as the pax would have no means to verify anyone's fingerprints, nor should they have access to such personal data about someone who's just there to shuttle them across town, for a pittance. What's next? Retinal scanners? Cheek swabs for DNA collection?

The point is, collecting biometric data is completely unnecessary, not to mention expensive. As D Town said, you can get a friggin *passport* without fingerprint collection, so why the hell should Uber require it?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

supernaut said:


> So would retinal scanners, and DNA collection.
> 
> The point is, collecting biometric data is completely unnecessary, not to mention expensive. As D Town said, you can get a friggin *passport* without fingerprint collection, so why the hell should Uber require it?


Retinal scanners and DNA collection would only work if the app required you to verify who you were BEFORE it would allow you to go online.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> How? Does the pax check to make sure the drivers finger prints match the ones on file?


They get to see a picture, right?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

supernaut said:


> Not necessarily, as the pax would have no means to verify anyone's fingerprints, nor should they have access to such personal data about someone who's just there to shuttle them across town. What's next? Retinal scanners? Cheek swabs for DNA collection?
> 
> The point is, collecting biometric data is completely unnecessary, not to mention expensive. As D Town said, you can get a friggin *passport* without fingerprint collection, so why the hell should Uber require it?


Passports don't have anything to do with background checks. Because without it Uber can't verify who their drivers are.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Demon said:


> They get to see a picture, right?


Yes, and that's sufficient. What are you suggesting? That every Uber driver should have to allow a pax to scan their fingerprints to verify what's on file, through the app? That's ludicrous.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Demon said:


> Passports don't have anything to do with background checks. Because without it Uber can't verify who their drivers are.


You're not even making any sense at this point.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> They get to see a picture, right?


Okay...let me lay this out for you one step at a time here.

*Felon: "*Hey, Brandon. I wanna drive for Uber but I got three DWI's. Can you help me out?
*Brandon:* Sure, Felon.

Brandon signs up for Uber, gets finger printed - which will likely be mailed in to a center - and then hands over access to the account to Felon who will provide his own picture to Uber. Now all he has to do is respond to the name Brandon and the pax sees his picture.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

This is what the taxi world is doing and thinking of. When we switch to smartphone app rather than current taxi tech, we use smartphones built in finger id device to ensure that driver signs in is same as approved by the authorities via background and fingerprint check. To avoid driver just handing off a accessed smartphone to someone else, every x minutes driver has to scan finger print.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> This is what the taxi world is doing and thinking of. When we switch to smartphone app rather than current taxi tech, we use smartphones built in finger id device to ensure that driver signs in is same as approved by the authorities via background and fingerprint check. To avoid driver just handing off a accessed smartphone to someone else, every x minutes driver has to scan finger print.


Yeah, eff that.

Imo that's a ridiculous amount of security for a "ridesharing" app, and in Uber's case, they'd pass on all the costs involved to the drivers, so we'd all make less $. There's not enough money in driving anymore to motivate these imagined nefarious schemes of an approved driver allowing some felon to use their account.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> This is what the taxi world is doing and thinking of. When we switch to smartphone app rather than current taxi tech, we use smartphones built in finger id device to ensure that driver signs in is same as approved by the authorities via background and fingerprint check. To avoid driver just handing off a accessed smartphone to someone else, every x minutes driver has to scan finger print.







http://www.networkworld.com/article...ys-to-beat-fingerprint-biometrics.html#slide2






Waste of time.


----------



## tripAces (Jun 18, 2015)

Uber knows what they are doing. Any city they get opposition from they hire a ex Commissioner or someone. It's Politics!!

City of Houston does require fingerprint and warrant checks. As well as drug test. We pay for it all. Didn't mind doing it.

Now I do drive in a area that is part COH and not. And I have pax questioning other driver's that don't have them. It's just buisness! 

But as far as Uber goes. Yes they need to make all driver's do a fingerprint background check that goes back 10yrs. It will thin out the herd very fast in some areas. In Houston obviously not so much because we already do that. 
Anyone opposing should get a check and grip on life. And really think about this. Who in the hell gets into a car with a stranger without ensuring their own safety. Hey I got water and candy come on in, smh. 

This is not about dictating or over-regulation. Its called being best qualified to do the work at hand. 

People don't realize if you are one of 50 that can work. Well that makes you valuable. Travis likes people with hardly any value so to pay as little as possible. Just let that sink in.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

tripAces said:


> Uber knows what they are doing. Any city they get opposition from they hire a ex Commissioner or someone. It's Politics!!
> 
> City of Houston does require fingerprint and warrant checks. As well as drug test. We pay for it all. Didn't mind doing it.
> 
> ...


You're obviously not a libertarian.

It's nice that you enjoy providing biometrics and DNA, (as well as paying for it), for a part-time job. Did you volunteer a vial of blood and offer to take a polygraph as well?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> Why? HOW is this safer from a regular federal background check? Why not create a DNA database of drivers next then? What extra security is provided by taking all drivers finger prints which is going to do nothing except create an even more massive database of mostly poor people?


Fingerprinting is safer because you know who the person is. When it started in Houston many people were found to have multiple aliases.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber CEO on the future of traffic in Boston and seven other takeaways from his speech*
> 
> *On long-term goals locally: *
> _"We envision a world where there's no more traffic in Boston in five years" and "If you imagine you're on top of one of these skyscrapers and looking down at all the cars, we want all those cars to be Ubers because if they were, the transportation system would be more efficient. That's how we think about it."_


Sounds like a God complex to me.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Fingerprinting is safer because you know who the person is. When it started in Houston many people were found to have multiple aliases.


No, you do not. You COULD:


Have the people show up in person to a location.
Get a birth certificate.
Social security card.
TWO government issued photo ID's.
Photograph them then and there.
Finger print them there.
Run a federal background check.
And after all of that, ALL of it, you won't 100% ensure all Uber drivers are legit. A driver could STILL hand his account and car over to his unemployed ex-con brother while he sleeps in or goes out on the town or some other such nonsense. I am aware that a system such as the one I described will likely stop a large proportion of the illegitimate activity HOWEVER that is true for a LOT of things. Should we have to do this for ALL jobs we apply for? How many people working in schools around kids have been found to be using aliases? I'm FAR more concerned about some a-hole child molester working around kids than I am full grown adults driving around with someone who was convicted of a DWI 20 years ago. Credit card fraud costs $190 billion a year. We could implement a lot of these safe guards for those transactions too but we don't and no one is clamoring to. Do you know why? Because instituting these checks is a burden.

Every security check can be defeated. The reason you implement them is to make the cost/benefit for the criminal skew just a little too far to the cost side for ENOUGH of them to make it not worth it however you ALSO make it harder on legitimate people to conduct business as well. This is why we DON'T have everyone carry around four types of federal and state ID, get finger printed, and photographed, and run background checks for every credit card purchase, house purchase, job interview, entry to a sporting event, and the list can go on and on. We would stop a LOT of criminals doing so of course but the cost and the way it would grind everything to a halt would make it not worth it. This is why we should throw up fences ONLY when the cost are outweighed by the benefits. WHAT problem will finger printing actually solve and WILL it cost more than it saves? Is the problem REALLY a problem or a rare sensational event?

Finger printing is both security theater (the practice of investing in countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually achieve it) and a threat to drivers security. The more data an institution collects the more inviting a target it is for thieves. Haven't we learned that from all the data breeches of retailers like Target? Even our own government can't keep our data safe so why are we tossing something so personal and UNCHANGEABLE as our fingerprints into a massive database/tasty hacker target for a friggen part time job like Uber?

*The 5.6 Million-Fingerprint Breach Could Haunt Its Victims Forever *
https://www.inverse.com/article/653...breach-with-savemysocial-ceo-joseph-steinberg

*Federal Government Loses Data on 583,000 Canadians*
http://www.asigra.com/blog/federal-government-loses-data-583000-canadians

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-21-5-million-people-federal-authorities-say/


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

D Town said:


> Or it could be that the woman lied and was caught. The entire POINT of having a criminal justice system is to sort out the guilty and the innocent. If you're guilty you go to jail. If not you walk. What system are you proposing exactly? Because if there is actual evidence of a crime - enough to actually convict the suspect - then the criminal justice system takes care of that. You want a system that...goes on, "Yeah, he PROBABLY did it"? I can't even begin to list the problems with that. What criteria are we basing this guilt on? The guy is creepy? The guy makes inappropriate comments? What besides actual hard evidence - that the criminal justice system would have already used to put the guy in prison - are you suggesting we use to determine someone needs to be punished?


You're going way off topic here and I am not going to follow you down a path where we are debating the legalities of what constitutes guilty vs innocent. There are legal forums for that and this isn't one.

My point still remains that there is a big difference between "not guilty" an "innocent". There are many instances where was was a solid case but technicalities such as evidence being mishandled, witnesses refusing to testify, jury issues and so on has led to a not guilty verdict. Go look at Al Capone, one of the most famous gangsters of all time, was he ever convicted of murder? Never. He was convicted of tax evasion. Does that mean he was completely innocent of all the murders he was behind? Hell no. There numerous cases over history.

So once again I am asking the question that you failed to answer. If a driver was arrested for sexual assault, the courts had plenty of evidence against him but he was let off the hook due to a technicality, should that individual continue to drive and be given access to be alone with possibly passed out individuals?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> You're going way off topic here and I am not going to follow you down a path where we are debating the legalities of what constitutes guilty vs innocent. There are legal forums for that and this isn't one.
> 
> My point still remains that there is a big difference between "not guilty" an "innocent". There are many instances where was was a solid case but technicalities such as evidence being mishandled, witnesses refusing to testify, jury issues and so on has led to a not guilty verdict. Go look at Al Capone, one of the most famous gangsters of all time, was he ever convicted of murder? Never. He was convicted of tax evasion. Does that mean he was completely innocent of all the murders he was behind? Hell no. There numerous cases over history.
> 
> So once again I am asking the question that you failed to answer. If a driver was arrested for sexual assault, the courts had plenty of evidence against him but he was let off the hook due to a technicality, should that individual continue to drive and be given access to be alone with possibly passed out individuals?


Don't do that. Don't try and dismiss my points without answering them by trying to brush them aside as "off topic". We're talking about guilt, innocence, and how and when to punish someone so my points are hardly off topic.

What you're asking is a hypothetical that doesn't happen all that often without a massive bankroll or police or prosecutorial incompetence which is the case with all the people you listed. Quite honestly the general public RARELY gets the details of such cases and gets to do anything more than GUESS as to why a case was lost or dropped but say you could get it.

Who exactly is supposed to go through the thousands of cases? 
Who gets to decide among all these cases that the prosecutors dropped which ones they're going to decide to punish someone for? 
Under what legal authority is this system supposed to operate?

I'll ask again - what criteria are we basing this guilt on? The guy is creepy? The guy makes inappropriate comments? What besides actual hard evidence - that the criminal justice system would have already used to put the guy in prison - are you suggesting we use to determine someone needs to be punished?

And since you bring up famous cases I can throw in some of my own: Sally Clark falsely accused, convicted and imprisoned for the murders of her sons. Conviction later overturned but who know? Maybe she IS guilty. They had enough evidence to convict her so perhaps we should put her on a watch list, not allow her to have certain jobs, and monitor her. Same with Angela Canning who was accused and imprisoned for her son's death, or Thomas Kennedy who was accused and imprisoned because of accusations his own daughter made of being raped by him, or Richard Jewell who was accused of bombing the Atlanta Olympics?

Accusations and suspicion are not and should not be enough to punish people. The day we start allowing that is the day we go back to the Salem Witch trials.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

D Town said:


> They had enough evidence to convict her so perhaps we should put her on a watch list, not allow her to have certain jobs, and monitor her.


Now you're understanding what I am saying. If they have enough evidence to convict, but for whatever reason whether it be someone mishandling evidence or refused to testify, and the person is found not guilty, it does not mean they are innocent of their crimes and therefore should go through additional checks/be put on a watch list. Yes, there are cases where mistakes have happened where innocent people were prosecuted but you cannot deny that there are cases where guilty individuals have been found not guilty.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> Why? HOW is this safer from a regular federal background check? Why not create a DNA database of drivers next then? What extra security is provided by taking all drivers finger prints which is going to do nothing except create an even more massive database of mostly poor people?


POST # 33/D Town: Great! Now you've
gone and brought
FACTS into the discussion instead of
relying on Feelings and Intuition!

Talk about "Harshing a Mellow"!

Bison: Pixie Dust + Rainbows = Unicorns


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber CEO on the future of traffic in Boston and seven other takeaways from his speech*
> 
> *On long-term goals locally: *
> _"We envision a world where there's no more traffic in Boston in five years" and "If you imagine you're on top of one of these skyscrapers and looking down at all the cars, we want all those cars to be Ubers because if they were, the transportation system would be more efficient. That's how we think about it."_


POST # 41/chi1cabby: Kakanicky stinks
up "The Hub" with
Rotting Hubris......"that's Efficiency!"

"Say, Bison, how do YOU spell C-R-A-Z-Y?"

"C...E...R...T...I...F...I...A...B...L...E...!"

Bison: Enjoy your "stay" in a PaddedCell
☆ ☆ @The Luxurious Greybar-4 Seasons!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Sounds like a God complex to me.


POST # 61/Fuzzyelvis: Which came first?
"God View" or
the Aforementioned "God Complex" ?

Bison: Busy "Pondering a PotRoast."


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> Now you're understanding what I am saying. If they have enough evidence to convict, but for whatever reason whether it be someone mishandling evidence or refused to testify, and the person is found not guilty, it does not mean they are innocent of their crimes and therefore should go through additional checks/be put on a watch list. Yes, there are cases where mistakes have happened where innocent people were prosecuted but you cannot deny that there are cases where guilty individuals have been found not guilty.


Systems not perfect so of course that happens however I was hoping you'd take two seconds to google the names but you know its GOOD that you didn't because you JUST demonstrated my point. Those women were convicted on FAULTY evidence and spent YEARS in prison before science improved and PROVED they were innocent and not only were they victimized by the deaths of their children, being wrongfully convicted, and losing their freedom, but you ALSO want to strip them of what little dignity they have left by telling them that we don't REALLY think their innocent no matter WHAT the evidence says so onto second class citizenship status they go forever. Nope. Sorry, that is bullcrap. You are either innocent or you are guilty. What you're suggesting sounds dangerously fascist.



Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 33/D Town: Great! Now you've
> gone and brought
> FACTS into the discussion instead of
> relying on Feelings and Intuition!
> ...


I have a bad habit of doing that. I'm trying to stop but its kind of a hard habit to break.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> Okay...let me lay this out for you one step at a time here.
> 
> *Felon: "*Hey, Brandon. I wanna drive for Uber but I got three DWI's. Can you help me out?
> *Brandon:* Sure, Felon.
> ...


So Uber would be able to see that the picture doesn't match the person who was fingerprinted and deactivate the account.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> So Uber would be able to see that the picture doesn't match the person who was fingerprinted and deactivate the account.


As far as Uber is concerned in the scenario I laid out the picture that they have DOES match with the finger prints on file. Unless you're making them come to a central location to get finger printed and photographed at the same time that is.

Are you now suggesting that Uber will do that and then have the driver submit a picture every time he logs on and that someone at Uber check to make sure it matches the one on file?


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

LA Cabbie said:


> Checking criminal backgrounds by using fingerprint records could be "discriminatory," Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said, because local police records might leave out whether someone who was arrested for a crime was ultimately convicted or not.
> 
> Kalanick's comments Tuesday at the Boston College CEO Club come as states, including Massachusetts, consider legislation that could force Uber and similar ride-hailing services to fingerprint their drivers. It also comes as Uber plans to add millions of drivers to its system in the US next year, vastly increasing the number of drivers who might pick up someone for a ride across town.
> 
> ...


^^^^
Face it, Kalanick is a bedwetting handwringer.


----------



## dpv (Oct 12, 2015)

Rent a cops gets fingerprinted all the time regardless if they carry heat or not, and even some banks will ask you for your fingerprint if you're cashing or depositing a check. If someone doesn't have anything to hide then fingerprinting shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

dpv said:


> Rent a cops gets fingerprinted all the time regardless if they carry heat or not, and even some banks will ask you for your fingerprint if you're cashing or depositing a check. If someone doesn't have anything to hide then fingerprinting shouldn't be an issue.


Same argument applies to building DNA databases and random home searches.


----------



## dpv (Oct 12, 2015)

They better have a very good reason just to randomly search my home with a warrant.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

dpv said:


> They better have a very good reason just to randomly search my home with a warrant.


If you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> As far as Uber is concerned in the scenario I laid out the picture that they have DOES match with the finger prints on file. Unless you're making them come to a central location to get finger printed and photographed at the same time that is.
> 
> Are you now suggesting that Uber will do that and then have the driver submit a picture every time he logs on and that someone at Uber check to make sure it matches the one on file?


No one is suggesting that.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> Same argument applies to building DNA databases and random home searches.


No it doesn't.


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> I'm calling total bs on police records not showing convictions. I got arrested by small town USA police for driving on a suspended license. Got a good lawyer and had the charge drop down from misdemeanor to just pay the damn ticket. When I went for my cab permit, I was asked if i have ever been arrested and regardless if it lead to a conviction. I said yes and wrote about the reason for the arrest and the outcome. The data that came back from the police department confirmed what i mentioned that i got arrested but had the associated charge dropped. Since I didn't have a misdemeanor, I was cleared for my cab permit.
> 
> What Travis just said is an outright lie or the very least grand ignorance.


Your conclusion is right but for the wrong reasons. Your example is just anecdotal. You revealed the arrest and conviction so of course they will make sure to check it out. If you hadn't told them, then that story might be of some value.

Travis is either pretending not to understand, or doesn't understand, (along with the most people posting in this forum) how background checks work. Most people outside law enforcement don't. They are very complex. The first thing you have to understand is that there are many different databases out there. City, county, state, (CLETS in CA), federal (NLETS and NCIC), sex offender, terrorist watch list etc. Everyone uses the word "fingerprinted" as if that defines the ultimate in back grounds. It doesn't. Being fingerprinted only verifies the identity of the person being background checked. A non-finderprint back ground check is just as thorough and accurate, as long as the person is identified correctly. The effectiveness of a back ground is purely dependent on the databases one checks, period.

Having said that, what Uber does is a 7 year "consumer reports" back ground check and a check of public sex offender registries which is why felons having completed their term of incarceration over 7 years ago have been found driving Uber. And many registered sex offenders are not on the public registry, but only known to law enforcement.

The only people complaining about the background checks are the taxi cartels. Considering there are millions of Uber/Lyft drivers, how often do you see a story about a ride-share driver committing some crime that turned out to have a record? It's very, very rare, but always highly publicized in the media when it does happen. Yet how many crazy taxi drivers are there committing crimes or behaving abhorrently? It's off the charts. Everyone has a story about taxi drivers but they never make the news because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's become what what we expect from Taxi drivers. And what is the use of fingerprinting even for Taxi drivers? A high percent of them are immigrants from developing countries. Even a full back ground of every known US database isn't going to turn up what they have been up to back in their home country.

Our society is over regulated in many ares, and taxi's are one of them. Thank God we have Uber/Lyft etc. to bring some sense to it all while breaking the back of taxi mafias across the country. In Florida one county has answered the taxi mafia's cry's by removing the fingerprint requirement for ALL taxi drivers. Brilliant! Lets hope that catches on.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

sUBERu2u said:


> Your conclusion is right but for the wrong reasons. Your example is just anecdotal. You revealed the arrest and conviction so of course they will make sure to check it out. If you hadn't told them, then that story might be of some value.
> 
> Travis is either pretending not to understand, or doesn't understand, (along with the most people posting in this forum) how background checks work. Most people outside law enforcement don't. They are very complex. The first thing you have to understand is that there are many different databases out there. City, county, state, federal, sex offender, terrorist watch list etc. Everyone uses the word "fingerprinted" as if that defines the ultimate in back grounds. It doesn't. It only verifies the identity of the person being background checked. *A non-finderprint back ground check is just as thorough and accurate, as long as the person is identified correctly.* The effectiveness of a back ground is purely dependent on the databases one checks, period.
> 
> ...


The above bolded statement is factually incorrect. It's not even something we can debate.


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

Demon said:


> The above bolded statement is factually incorrect. It's not even something we can debate.


Please explain why you believe this.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

sUBERu2u said:


> Your conclusion is right but for the wrong reasons. Your example is just anecdotal. You revealed the arrest and conviction so of course they will make sure to check it out. If you hadn't told them, then that story might be of some value.
> 
> Travis is either pretending not to understand, or doesn't understand, (along with the most people posting in this forum) how background checks work. Most people outside law enforcement don't. They are very complex. The first thing you have to understand is that there are many different databases out there. City, county, state, (CLETS in CA), federal (NLETS and NCIC), sex offender, terrorist watch list etc. Everyone uses the word "fingerprinted" as if that defines the ultimate in back grounds. It doesn't. Being fingerprinted only verifies the identity of the person being background checked. A non-finderprint back ground check is just as thorough and accurate, as long as the person is identified correctly. The effectiveness of a back ground is purely dependent on the databases one checks, period.
> 
> ...


Part of the background check in Los Angeles or taxi permit includes police finger printing check. When I got booked, I vividly remember I got fingerprinted. This is normal for anyone who gets booked by the police regardless of outcome of arrest. There most certainly would have been a match when the LADOT ran my fingerprints across police records. The application I filled out explicitly said list any arrest you may have had. Failure to do so will disqualify you from obtaining a permit. My arrest was considered a "withhold adjudication" , which in Florida, basically meant, pay the damn fine, and the court will be happy. In other words, I did not have a conviction. Nevertheless, because the fingerprint match, I had to declare the arrest.

I live in South Florida now and will aware of what Uber demands and how the county/city responds to them without being hypocritical to the taxi world. I do not approve of eliminating fingerprinting background checks and also the elimination of drug testing.

The State of Florida is working on a draft bill to regulate Uber through-out Florida.

I find this statement to be extremely untrue and highly offensive:

*Yet how many crazy taxi drivers are there committing crimes or behaving abhorrently? It's off the charts. Everyone has a story about taxi drivers but they never make the news because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's become what what we expect from Taxi drivers.*

I've asked this question to everyone who brought up Taxi cartels, with the exception of perhaps Las Vegas, what's this Taxi Cartel?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> No one is suggesting that.


How else are you going to make your system work?



Demon said:


> No it doesn't.


Explain to me how its different.


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> Part of the background check in Los Angeles or taxi permit includes police finger printing check. When I got booked, I vividly remember I got fingerprinted. This is normal for anyone who gets booked by the police regardless of outcome of arrest. There most certainly would have been a match when the LADOT ran my fingerprints across police records. The application I filled out explicitly said list any arrest you may have had. Failure to do so will disqualify you from obtaining a permit. My arrest was considered a "withhold adjudication" , which in Florida, basically meant, pay the damn fine, and the court will be happy. In other words, I did not have a conviction. Nevertheless, because the fingerprint match, I had to declare the arrest.


This is what I mean by people not understanding background checks. They aren't "running your prints across police records." looking for matching prints. The only time they do that is if they have prints from a crime scene to which they wish to match a person. Fingerprinting is just to identify you. They run your name and DOB to get your records.



LA Cabbie said:


> I find this statement to be extremely untrue and highly offensive:
> 
> *Yet how many crazy taxi drivers are there committing crimes or behaving abhorrently? It's off the charts. Everyone has a story about taxi drivers but they never make the news because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's become what what we expect from Taxi drivers.*


I'm sorry if it offends you, but you cannot deny this is the impression the world has of the average cabbie. There is a reason for that impression.
*
*


LA Cabbie said:


> I've asked this question to everyone who brought up Taxi cartels, with the exception of perhaps Las Vegas, what's this Taxi Cartel?


It's a group of people using things like extortion, bribery, and intimidation to get what they want. (Money)

"Over the last year, taxi association leaders acknowledged that animosity has turned into violence from cab drivers against their ride-sharing competitors. Last week, a former Lyft driver told me one reason he switched to Uber was because Lyft's signature pink car mustache encouraged attacks against him and his car. "You get physical confrontations between legal cab drivers and cabs who are trying to steal our fares," explained Kornengold. "We don't condone any physical attacks, but we're all human and people get angry when they're stolen from."

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/31/ta...rideshare-startups-at-sf-city-hall-protest-2/

Let me Google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=taxi+cartel


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

sUBERu2u said:


> Please explain why you believe this.


What I believe doesn't matter.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> What I believe doesn't matter.


I'll take you at your word on this statement then.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> How else are you going to make your system work?
> 
> Explain to me how its different.


They would only need to check on two occasions. The first would be comparing your Uber pic against your driver's license when you open the account. The second would only happen if the Uber picture changes.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

D Town said:


> I'll take you at your word on this statement then.


Glad we're in agreement that we'll focus on facts instead of what you might believe.


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

Demon said:


> What I believe doesn't matter.


That's something we can both agree on.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> Glad we're in agreement that we'll focus on facts instead of what you might believe.


Because as we both know fact are established by whoever exclaims their belief first and can dismiss others fastest.


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

D Town said:


> Because as we both know fact are established by whoever exclaims their belief first and can dismiss others fastest.


That only works if your name is Trump.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> Drivers in Boston have earned about $200 million in the past year, Uber said.


Congrats ... Boston drivers are making some serious coin ... if it wasn't so bloody cold in the winter I'd consider moving there


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> Congrats ... Boston drivers are making some serious coin ... if it wasn't so bloody cold in the winter I'd consider moving there


One of my house mates who drives UberXL/SUV/Select full time just moved to Boston purely based on what he heard the market was like there.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

One argument for fingerprinting is ... currently Uber can onboard drivers whenever they want with absolutely no scrutiny. I don't know about your market, but our streets are literally slammed with drivers before major events that just signed up 48 hours before the event ... my BG took weeks to complete and I was a honorably discharged veteran with TS clearance ... so how on earth did Uber signup and vet drivers within 48 hours? Fingerprinting while not perfect prevents Uber from flooding your city with new drivers any time they get a wild hair up their a__. Having talked to many of the full time drivers in ATX ... they are all in favor of a process similar to Houston (city registration, permits, fingerprints) ... bottom line - if you can't pass the fingerprint test then frankly I don't want you driving my sister or g/f around. And if there's an error on your FBI BG - then get it fixed. And if you don't want fingerprinting in your city ... then congrats before you know it there will be 10X more drivers than riders ... and you'll be lucky to earn a living wage. *or you can go work at McDonald's ... oh wait, they use fingerprints to login/logout for work (source) ... but then again many McDonald's employees make more than X drivers


----------



## sUBERu2u (Jun 18, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> One argument for fingerprinting is ... currently Uber can onboard drivers whenever they want with absolutely no scrutiny. I don't know about your market, but our streets are literally slammed with drivers before major events that just signed up 48 hours before the event ... my BG took weeks to complete and I was a honorably discharged veteran with TS clearance ... so how on earth did Uber signup and vet drivers within 48 hours? Fingerprinting while not perfect prevents Uber from flooding your city with new drivers any time they get a wild hair up their a__. Having talked to many of the full time drivers in ATX ... they are all in favor of a process similar to Houston (city registration, permits, fingerprints) ... bottom line - if you can't pass the fingerprint test then frankly I don't want you driving my sister or g/f around. And if there's an error on your FBI BG - then get it fixed. And if you don't want fingerprinting in your city ... then congrats before you know it there will be 10X more drivers than riders ... and you'll be lucky to earn a living wage. *or you can go work at McDonald's ... oh wait, they use fingerprints to login/logout for work (source) ... but then again many McDonald's employees make more than X drivers


How do you know they signed up 48 hours before? I also had a TS and mine took well over a week.

Macdonalds fingerprint logging has nothing to do with BG checks, but I assume you knew that.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

sUBERu2u said:


> How do you know they signed up 48 hours before? I also had a TS and mine took well over a week.
> Macdonalds fingerprint logging has nothing to do with BG checks, but I assume you knew that.


48 hours ... they told me. They may have been BSing ... but I doubt it, considering all the new people that flocked the streets the week of ACL
yep ... I know that McD's has nothing to do with BG ... but there are 1,000's of biz that do (realtors, banks, airport (any job), schools (any job), day care, brokers, any city/county/state/federal employee, airlines, taxis ... yada yada yada ... list is too long)


----------



## dpv (Oct 12, 2015)

D Town said:


> If you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be an issue.


to shea


----------



## TravisKalanick (Dec 9, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


> If they make drivers register for finger printing the county will know Uber is saturating the streets with thousands and thousands of drivers and causing traffic confession. This will also call for an impact study and environmental study which Uber might have to foot the bill plus face public backlash from all sectors of the community.
> If you think your saving a buck taking Uber and there's 2000 cars are idling how is that saving anything?!


Uber Pool would certainly result in less traffic. People taking Uber rather than driving mostly means that there will be fewer cars competing for a limited number of parking spaces or garage spots. This puts downward pressure on those items, saving residents even more money.


----------



## uberalles60 (Sep 23, 2015)

Uber did do live scan finger print for some new drivers this past summer for some new drivers in Los Angeles. Although they didn't tell the drivers that is what they were doing. They asked you to participate in a "study". Anyone experience this?...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...-drivers-but-is-quietly-testing-it-live-scan/


----------

