# CBS news at 11 female uber driver attacked



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Coming on at 11 uber driver attacked, on next....


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Coming on at 11 uber driver attacked, on next....


Sorry CBS in Los Angeles


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Shes Grandmother, got attacked Friday night in North L.A. Uber won't help her ID pax.


----------



## John Mckiernan (Jan 9, 2015)

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015...r-but-company-refuses-to-give-her-rider-info/


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Wtories like these will resonate with the public even above the cheap rates. Well after a few more instances anyway.


----------



## Montgomery (Jan 7, 2015)

"...they responded that the fastest way for drivers to get get help is by contacting police and then to follow up with the company *so they can assist the authorities." *

But they don't seem to be assisting the authorities if they won't reveal the passengers info.


----------



## Driveronedge (Mar 3, 2015)

Time to Share the shit outta this story....God I ****ING hate Uber.


----------



## Luberon (Nov 24, 2014)

She will need to sue uber to get that info.... Surprise, surprise, they dont give a rats a** about you, the driver


----------



## dandy driver (Jan 28, 2015)

observer said:


> Shes Grandmother, got attacked Friday night in North L.A. Uber won't help her ID pax.


Uber claims no liability for what customers do to drivers or what drivers do to customers. Uber is not a transportation co.. you are an independent Contractor. Uber partners with 20% of your cars income. Drivers assume all risk. Get a lawyer to explain it to you.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Uber should never give the driver information about the passenger. This works both ways, we don't want passengers to be given our info now do we?

The right steps were taken that the police are involved. They will get the details and sort it out. You are also only hearing one side of the story. As this makes good news I would say Uber did the right thing by not releasing the passenger info to the driver. What if that info is then used while someone she knows goes and seeks out the customers for a little revenge.

Now should Uber have a 1-800 number for emergencies. Absolutely. Or how about a driver panic button that dispatches the police to a scene right away.

Uber will duck anything that they can. We all know that.


----------



## Montgomery (Jan 7, 2015)

Actionjax said:


> Uber should never give the driver information about the passenger. This works both ways, we don't want passengers to be given our info now do we?
> 
> The right steps were taken that the police are involved. They will get the details and sort it out. You are also only hearing one side of the story. As this makes good news I would say Uber did the right thing by not releasing the passenger info to the driver. What if that info is then used while someone she knows goes and seeks out the customers for a little revenge.


Do you really believe Uber will release the identity to the authorities, without a court order? Maybe in this case because the press is involved .
Other than that I don't think so. And the reality is for something that seems minor in the eyes of LE (as in this case), they will rarely take the extra steps to get a court order and if they do it will take up more time that won't play in the favor of that lady driver.
Uber's "punishment" of the passenger of simply deactivating the account is laughable at best for the rider. Deactivating the driver on the other hand, is something that can cost the person their livelihood yet we know they will do it with a mere allegation from a passenger. I feel if there is a police report involved, the identity should be revealed to either the driver or passenger. Making a false police report is a crime in an of itself, so there shouldn't be any worries of abuse of the info in that regard.

Is one thing for Uber to stay neutral because after all, they "just" process payments and connect drivers with passengers. But is another thing for them to promote violence towards drivers with their inaction. You can imagine those idiots telling their freinds: "Yeah, I whipped this stupid uber driver lady with th first thing I could grab" --"Dude, aren't you afraid Uber will come after you?"-- "Nah, all they did was deactivate my account, I just went and got a new one with a different email and goggle number, no worries here."


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Montgomery said:


> Do you really believe Uber will release the identity to the authorities, without a court order? Maybe in this case because the press is involved .
> Other than that I don't think so. And the reality is for something that seems minor in the eyes of LE (as in this case), they will rarely take the extra steps to get a court order and if they do it will take up more time that won't play in the favor of that lady driver.
> Uber's "punishment" of the passenger of simply deactivating the account is laughable at best for the rider. Deactivating the driver on the other hand, is something that can cost the person their livelihood yet we know they will do it with a mere allegation from a passenger. I feel if there is a police report involved, the identity should be revealed to either the driver or passenger. Making a false police report is a crime in an of itself, so there shouldn't be any worries of abuse of the info in that regard.
> 
> Is one thing for Uber to stay neutral because after all, they "just" process payments and connect drivers with passengers. But is another thing for them to promote violence towards drivers with their inaction. You can imagine those idiots telling their freinds: "Yeah, I whipped this stupid uber driver lady with th first thing I could grab" --"Dude, aren't you afraid Uber will come after you?"-- "Nah, all they did was deactivate my account, I just went and got a new one with a different email and goggle number, no worries here."


Since we are assuming a number of things here I can probably answer a few items as I have had to deal with this type of thing before.

1) Companies request court orders to protect themselves against prosecution. Most have privacy policy's in place with their information to protect the users information. This is the same for phone companies and in my case a financial institution. For Law enforcement this is standard practice to get a court order. Until the court order is served Uber can deactivate the account of the user. And they have said they have done that. Here in Canada one of the Telco companies up here is being sued for giving the RCMP information on up to 3000 requests without a court order. And there is a chance they will need to pay out for that suit. Now a court order is required.

2) No one should be given info on someone else in a police investigation. I know I wouldn't want it. If something happens to the individuals like they get hit by a bus. There is no way you aren't going to be linked into an investigation if it is deemed suspicious.

3) If the police don't peruse the case they are the ones that need to be responsible. Uber need to provide the authorities all information requested with the proper information. This should hold true for any company. I don't want my info shared to any law enforcement just because they ask. We have a right to privacy as anyone. Companies of all types need to hold our info secret. If an insurance company asked Uber for a list of drivers would you want that released?

Any crime is bad, and to a driver trying to make a living it's appalling. I would want to see the miserable pricks who did this get their day in court. But let due process work the way it should. All companies need to protect our info. Google, Sprint, Bank of America, and Uber.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> Since we are assuming a number of things here I can probably answer a few items as I have had to deal with this type of thing before.
> 
> 1) Companies request court orders to protect themselves against prosecution. Most have privacy policy's in place with their information to protect the users information. This is the same for phone companies and in my case a financial institution. For Law enforcement this is standard practice to get a court order. Until the court order is served Uber can deactivate the account of the user. And they have said they have done that. Here in Canada one of the Telco companies up here is being sued for giving the RCMP information on up to 3000 requests without a court order. And there is a chance they will need to pay out for that suit. Now a court order is required.
> 
> ...


Could the Uber driver pulled the pax info off the bill of lading?


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Txchick said:


> Could the Uber driver pulled the pax info off the bill of lading?


They removed the last name now and only provide the last letter of the last name. You don't get much else. The address is the info on the ping pickup.

At least in my region. It used to contain more.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> They removed the last name now and only provide the last letter of the last name. You don't get much else. The address is the info on the ping pickup.
> 
> At least in my region. It used to contain more.


Grrrr..that's not good!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I think the thing to learn here, is that if you feel Uber isn't being helpful with something as serious as getting assaulted, it is best to go to the media and that will get their attention.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

observer said:


> I think the thing to learn here, is that if you feel Uber isn't being helpful with something as serious as getting assaulted, it is best to go to the media and that will get their attention.


Yep!!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> They removed the last name now and only provide the last letter of the last name. You don't get much else. The address is the info on the ping pickup.
> 
> At least in my region. It used to contain more.


I haven't used uber as a rider. What info DOES it show to the rider?


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I haven't used uber as a rider. What info DOES it show to the rider?


Our name & pic of your car & license plate & a pic of you. A lot of info!!


----------



## uberguuber (Feb 23, 2015)

observer said:


> I think the thing to learn here, is that if you feel Uber isn't being helpful with something as serious as getting assaulted, it is best to go to the media and that will get their attention.


if its an assault case the police can get the information, that should get Uber's attention.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberguuber said:


> if its an assault case the police can get the information, that should get Uber's attention.


True, but Uber is beginning to realize that not all publicity is good publicity.

In case Uber for some crazy reason decides to deactivate her or penalize her, she has fortified her position BECAUSE of the publicity.

She now has a contact in the media to further publicize any situation.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

KFI in LA is running this story in a few minutes.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Well I'm not too familiar of how uber handles these things, but the least they could is report the pax to the authorities. Unless the pax is a different person then on the APP.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Maybe the Hacker(s) that go 50,000 Driver Names/Driver's License #s in an Uber Data Breach 5 months ago (just got letter this week), could help out this Driver to get the PAX's info.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/27/uber-breach-exposes-50000-driver-names-and-license-numbers/


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> Uber should never give the driver information about the passenger. This works both ways, we don't want passengers to be given our info now do we?
> 
> The right steps were taken that the police are involved. They will get the details and sort it out. You are also only hearing one side of the story. As this makes good news I would say Uber did the right thing by not releasing the passenger info to the driver. What if that info is then used while someone she knows goes and seeks out the customers for a little revenge.
> 
> ...


Bullshit.

This is no different than the Pope not publicly disclosing pedophile priests and referring them to prosecutors for criminal trials.

The pax info should be disclosed to the police/DA upon demand so there can be both criminal and civil prosecution.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> This is no different than the Pope not publicly disclosing pedophile priests and referring them to prosecutors for criminal trials.
> 
> The pax info should be disclosed to the police/DA upon demand so there can be both criminal and civil prosecution.


Don't think I was disagreeing with that. But like any company it's private info. The laws are in place to protect you. It's not hard to get the info, but police need to follow the laws as well. Otherwise you wouldn't want the evidence being thrown out due to a technicality.

I'm all for disclosure by Uber, I think they are as well. But any company needs to have an order to protect themselves. I know my company does not give out anything to the police without a court order. This includes items of suspected terrorism.

Most companies it's not an issue with wanting to help. But they need to protect the public from misuse of that info. We have trusted them with that.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> Don't think I was disagreeing with that. But like any company it's private info. The laws are in place to protect you. It's not hard to get the info, but police need to follow the laws as well. Otherwise you wouldn't want the evidence being thrown out due to a technicality.
> 
> I'm all for disclosure by Uber, I think they are as well. But any company needs to have an order to protect themselves. I know my company does not give out anything to the police without a court order. This includes items of suspected terrorism.
> 
> Most companies it's not an issue with wanting to help. But they need to protect the public from misuse of that info. We have trusted them with that.


I have no reason to believe Uber won't cooperate with the authorities within the proper channels of disclosures.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

Anybody can get attacked just walking down the street. uber escapes by using the 5th Amendment.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> I have no reason to believe Uber won't cooperate with the authorities within the proper channels of disclosures.


_Proper channels of disclosure_ are a thing of the past. Today it's all about money and liability. uber's Mission Statement should be *F Everybody But Me*.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SCdave said:


> Maybe the Hacker(s) that go 50,000 Driver Names/Driver's License #s in an Uber Data Breach 5 months ago (just got letter this week), could help out this Driver to get the PAX's info.
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/02/27/uber-breach-exposes-50000-driver-names-and-license-numbers/





scrurbscrud said:


> I have no reason to believe Uber won't cooperate with the authorities within the proper channels of disclosures.


I think Ubers mistake was not communicating with the driver. She went to the media because Uber did not respond to her complaints until after she went public.

Even if they didn't give her any info, they could of said to her, we are working on this. We are talking with police etc...

If you go on twitter, Uber answers customer complaints within an hour of being tweeted. Why do they take days to respond to their "partners".


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

mike888 said:


> _Proper channels of disclosure_ are a thing of the past. Today it's all about money and liability. uber's Mission Statement should be *F Everybody But Me*.


Allow me to restate: IF Uber is forced to disclose by authorities, they MAY cooperate


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

observer said:


> I think Ubers mistake was not communicating with the driver. She went to the media because Uber did not respond to her complaints until after she went public.
> 
> Even if they didn't give her any info, they could of said to her, we are working on this. We are talking with police etc...
> 
> If you go on twitter, Uber answers customer complaints within an hour of being tweeted. Why do they take days to respond to their "partners".


Most responses I get are in 12 hours. Longest I have waited was 48 hours on something. For some that's unsettling so they escalate to the media. Twitter I get a very quick response but they still need to forward it to the partner people.


----------



## MrsUberJax (Sep 2, 2014)

It is my opinion, as a female driver, that the information should be immediately reported to the police, FBI, whatever it takes. Uber should provide the pass & driver identifying information to the authorities. Uber says they will assist the authorities in these investigations and now we will see exactly how that works. Definitely something to watch.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

This link may help what is needed for law authorities to seek information.

https://www.uber.com/legal/guidelines-for-law-enforcement


----------



## Jake Miller (Nov 7, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> Uber should never give the driver information about the passenger. This works both ways, we don't want passengers to be given our info now do we?
> 
> The right steps were taken that the police are involved. They will get the details and sort it out. You are also only hearing one side of the story. As this makes good news I would say Uber did the right thing by not releasing the passenger info to the driver. What if that info is then used while someone she knows goes and seeks out the customers for a little revenge.
> 
> ...


The emergency number to Uber is 844-326-5774


----------



## Uberamstel (Jul 30, 2014)

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015...r-but-company-refuses-to-give-her-rider-info/


----------



## Oc_DriverX (Apr 29, 2014)

I have two thoughts on this sad situation.

First, how ironic is it that this story comes out days before Uber announces its latest publicity campaign about how Uber is looking to add 1,000,000 female drivers to its ranks. I doubt those prospective drivers would feel warm and fuzzy after reading this story.

My second thought is about Uber's continual claim that it is not a transportation company. It is simply a technology company. Uber claims that it is a "payment processor" for the purposes of giving us 1099s. If Uber is really just processing payments for independent contractor drivers, then shouldn't those drivers be entitled to their own customer's information? Is a customer who rides in our own vehicle entitled to their identity being secret from us? How unsafe is it that we are unable to identify a rider in our own car? If the passenger needs to identify us, they can simply give our license plate info and our first name to the police, which can probably get us identified in a matter of minutes. If the roles are reversed, all we can give police is a first name and initial (which we know isn't always correct) and some description. How quickly can law enforcement get the full information from Uber? Perhaps passengers would think twice about some of their behaviors if they were aware that they may be quickly identified.

It simply seems to be another case of Uber bending over backwards for the passenger, even if it may endanger the driver.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Oc_DriverX said:


> I have two thoughts on this sad situation.
> 
> First, how ironic is it that this story comes out days before Uber announces its latest publicity campaign about how Uber is looking to add 1,000,000 female drivers to its ranks. I doubt those prospective drivers would feel warm and fuzzy after reading this story.
> 
> ...


As a passenger part of the platform is that their information is protected. I don't want some driver to have my girlfriends info so she can be stalked later. This has happened to her with cab drivers when they have had her number for the pickup. 2 days later she gets a call asking if she is single and want to go out on a date.

No police officer will give a rider your personal info because they give them a license plate number.

There is no reason for a driver or a rider to have each others information. So long as it's being brokered by a trusted 3rd party. If you want action against a driver or a rider, report it to your local police. Let them take care of it. That's their job. And Uber has a process in place for that to assist police.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Oc_DriverX said:


> I have two thoughts on this sad situation.
> 
> First, how ironic is it that this story comes out days before Uber announces its latest publicity campaign about how Uber is looking to add 1,000,000 female drivers to its ranks. I doubt those prospective drivers would feel warm and fuzzy after reading this story.
> 
> ...


I think this is another argument for Uber being an employer and not just an app.

Control of customer information and contact with customer is a key part of a business.

Drivers do not have this control.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> As a passenger part of the platform is that their information is protected. I don't want some driver to have my girlfriends info so she can be stalked later. This has happened to her with cab drivers when they have had her number for the pickup. 2 days later she gets a call asking if she is single and want to go out on a date.
> 
> No police officer will give a rider your personal info because they give them a license plate number.
> 
> There is no reason for a driver or a rider to have each others information. So long as it's being brokered by a trusted 3rd party. If you want action against a driver or a rider, report it to your local police. Let them take care of it. That's their job. And Uber has a process in place for that to assist police.


first of all one phone call does not constitute stalking if the driver calls and your girlfriend doesn't reply or says no and he doesn't call again that may be proved unprofessional but it's not stalking.

second why does the ride to get to have more information about us than we have about them we don't even know if we have the right name.

and since when did uber become a trusted third party do you trust them?

besides the driver has probably had a background check at least. in a city like mine he's also done fingerprinting and other background checks what background checks are done on the rider? The driver is in a lot more danger than the rider is so why does the driver have less information than the rider does?


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> first of all one phone call does not constitute stalking if the driver calls and your girlfriend doesn't reply or says no and he doesn't call again that may be proved unprofessional but it's not stalking.
> 
> second why does the ride to get to have more information about us than we have about them we don't even know if we have the right name.
> 
> ...


What purpose does it serve having the information?. Why do you need it? What does it do for you when the police can deal with the issue? How is it making your job easier to do?

As far as I am concerned 1 call is stalking. It was not provided to the driver to constitute calling her again for personal reasons. That's just creepy. In any other business like where I work if someone did that they would be fired on the spot, no questions asked. And there is laws around that very thing.

Regardless on weather you trust Uber or not you have willfully provided them information under their privacy policy. Passengers have done the same. Legaly Uber has a right to protect the information.

A background check only checks the current state of a driver and does not prevent a future occurrence. Based on some of the Anti PAX statements you see on here I wouldn't trust anyone with my info. Who knows what kind of jackoff things some drivers would do over no tip or minimum fare.


----------

