5 ms·

There are 2 answers to this. Lyft, which made the above qoute and Uber, obviously could continue operating if breifly pausing to fingerprint their drivers. How

There are 2 answers to this. Lyft, which made the above qoute and Uber, obviously could continue operating if breifly pausing to fingerprint their drivers. However, the first answer to your question is that they won't. The premise of ridesharing is about scalable technology that allows people to work together on a platform. It would be an expensive precedent for these companies to have to pay for this cost. This is regardless of how you the consumer feel. There is also a very non-trivial impediment to get drivers to do this, especially if they are barred for something like a felony, even non-violent or not related to a vehicle. The difference is who controls the process, which wasn't stated in the article. I suspect a 3rd prty (e.g. Austin) would want drivers to come into a public place (police staton/town hall) and get fingerprinted. I do not believe that could simply thumbprint a phone. The second answer is privacy & convenience. A driver is unlikely to want to get fingerprinted and it probably makes little difference. Why should some agency get potentially millions of fingerprints (if this become national) when it would serve no purpose. Maybe they can serve warrants, ect. Again, idk if this is good or bad from a public standpoint but in practice Uber/Lyft already have a car, registration, license, picture, social media and very quickly a review system. So to the extent someone wanted to cheat, it would just be another small ipediment.

jtchang 10y ago
I actually feel fingerprints are a bad idea but I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". One other thought is that why wouldn't Uber/Lyft want these regulations. It seems like the are already the dominant party and fingerprint regulation would create a moat for other competitors to enter.
- callinize_cto 10y ago
  I think most regulation keeps competitors out vs in.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  Because a regulatory moat keeps competitors out because it is a hassle and has increased compliance costs. There seems to be 0 leverage in fingerprinting and I would argue unlikely to provide a stepchange improvement in safety. So Austin would have to establish a way to fingerprint people and verify them which 1) Lyft and Uber have already, 2) WOuld be paid for by Lyft/Uber/Taxpayers 3) WOuld put a huge moat around the onboarding process and add a fuckton of friction. I agree that cities should be able to enforce laws like this. I disagree with this one, but not their right to. However, to the degree Lyft & Uber provide leverage, they certainly have the right to leave and take their value with them in the hopes Austin reconsiders.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  > I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". But there's a limit somewhere, right? You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume), so there has to be some line around a city's democratic rights?
  - gonzo 10y ago
    > You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume) Your example is specifically barred by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as decided in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), and Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), as well as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, aka "The Fair Housing Act" Because it used to happen.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The question is why is this limit good, but a different limit is bad? We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?
      - jdbernard 10y ago
        Because being black is an inherent trait outside of someone's control. Choosing to be an Uber driver is a person's active choice, and everyone has a fingerprint. So you're not forced to do something you don't want to do, and you're not being discriminated against because of something you cannot control.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        This is an interesting principle, and it applies in this case. But it has other interesting conclusions. For instance, your principle seems to allow discrimination against Jews/Muslims/people who engage in homosexual acts/promiscuous women/etc. And it seems to bar discrimination against, e.g., the short and ugly (at least if being ugly is not caused by being fat). Do you endorse these conclusions? If not, then this clearly can't be your motivating principle.
maxerickson 10y ago
If it provides a framework for shutting them out of a city, it's going to be an expensive precedent either way.
tptacek 10y ago
If a state or municipality makes a public policy decision that people convicted of certain felonies can't drive taxis or livery vehicles, it seems especially strange that Uber and Lyft would take a stand over their right to bypass that decision.

jtchang 10y ago

I actually feel fingerprints are a bad idea but I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". One other thought is that why wouldn't Uber/Lyft want these regulations. It seems like the are already the dominant party and fingerprint regulation would create a moat for other competitors to enter.

callinize_cto 10y ago
I think most regulation keeps competitors out vs in.
vonklaus 10y ago
Because a regulatory moat keeps competitors out because it is a hassle and has increased compliance costs. There seems to be 0 leverage in fingerprinting and I would argue unlikely to provide a stepchange improvement in safety. So Austin would have to establish a way to fingerprint people and verify them which 1) Lyft and Uber have already, 2) WOuld be paid for by Lyft/Uber/Taxpayers 3) WOuld put a huge moat around the onboarding process and add a fuckton of friction. I agree that cities should be able to enforce laws like this. I disagree with this one, but not their right to. However, to the degree Lyft & Uber provide leverage, they certainly have the right to leave and take their value with them in the hopes Austin reconsiders.
jdminhbg 10y ago
> I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". But there's a limit somewhere, right? You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume), so there has to be some line around a city's democratic rights?
- gonzo 10y ago
  > You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume) Your example is specifically barred by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as decided in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), and Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), as well as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, aka "The Fair Housing Act" Because it used to happen.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The question is why is this limit good, but a different limit is bad? We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?
    - jdbernard 10y ago
      Because being black is an inherent trait outside of someone's control. Choosing to be an Uber driver is a person's active choice, and everyone has a fingerprint. So you're not forced to do something you don't want to do, and you're not being discriminated against because of something you cannot control.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        This is an interesting principle, and it applies in this case. But it has other interesting conclusions. For instance, your principle seems to allow discrimination against Jews/Muslims/people who engage in homosexual acts/promiscuous women/etc. And it seems to bar discrimination against, e.g., the short and ugly (at least if being ugly is not caused by being fat). Do you endorse these conclusions? If not, then this clearly can't be your motivating principle.

maxerickson 10y ago

If it provides a framework for shutting them out of a city, it's going to be an expensive precedent either way.

tptacek 10y ago

If a state or municipality makes a public policy decision that people convicted of certain felonies can't drive taxis or livery vehicles, it seems especially strange that Uber and Lyft would take a stand over their right to bypass that decision.