5 ms·

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". O

by 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.
        jdbernard 10y ago
        The position I stated in my post above I do hold and do endorse as a good philosophy for life. However, the conclusions you have drawn do not follow logically from what I stated. All I said was that one should not discriminate based on innate attributes. I said nothing about other forms of discrimination. You have made the assumption that the inverse of my statement is true: that because I denounce discrimination based on attributes outside of people's control that I must support discrimination based on attributes within their control. This is not a logical conclusion of my statement and is not true. Generally speaking, I reject discrimination against people based on any attributes, within or without their control, except those attributes which directly pertain to the subject in question. So, for example, in a job situation, ideally, the only attributes we should be using to discriminate between candidates are their experience, knowledge, and ability to fulfill the duties of the position. If the job requires lifting heavy weights, discriminating upon your ability to lift heavy weights is fine. Discriminating based on sex (maybe justified because statistically most women are not strong enough to perform the duties) is not fine, because it is an indirect attribute. If this women meets the requirements it is irrelevant what other women can or cannot do. In this case with Uber and Lyft the city/state has the right (one could argue duty) to take steps to ensure the trustworthiness/safety of drivers operating commercial transportation services within its jurisdiction. Race does not say anything about the trustworthiness or criminal nature of a specific person. Even if, hypothetically, you assume that statistically one race is more prone to violence than another that does not speak directly about this candidate. It is an indirect measure like the example of sex above. An accurate background check, however, can shed light on facts in a person's past that are directly relevant to that question.
- paulmd 10y ago
  There's actually not. Unless it infringes on a protected class (eg "no black people") or a fundamental liberty interest, the "rational basis" standard prevails. This basically means that if a hypothetical reason could be articulated to support a public interest it's legal, even if it does not actually achieve that goal in practice. This becomes particularly broad when you're talking about actions in public. So while it would probably be considered an intrusion to send the Dental Police into everyone's home to be sure that they floss daily, it would probably be legal to have the Dental Police perform mandatory tooth-brushings on all taxi drivers. Nobody is forcing you to be a taxi driver and you could reasonably avoid the situation by practicing another profession instead. That's how you get stuff like requiring hair nets for food safety. But again, it doesn't necessarily have to be sensical. Unless otherwise restricted, states and cities have an enormous amount of leeway to do whatever they think is in their citizens' best interests. It's a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can. If Austin wants to fingerprint taxi drivers, that's well within their powers. Not even controversial - that has been common practice for probably a half century now.

by jtchang 10y ago

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.
      - jdbernard 10y ago
        The position I stated in my post above I do hold and do endorse as a good philosophy for life. However, the conclusions you have drawn do not follow logically from what I stated. All I said was that one should not discriminate based on innate attributes. I said nothing about other forms of discrimination. You have made the assumption that the inverse of my statement is true: that because I denounce discrimination based on attributes outside of people's control that I must support discrimination based on attributes within their control. This is not a logical conclusion of my statement and is not true. Generally speaking, I reject discrimination against people based on any attributes, within or without their control, except those attributes which directly pertain to the subject in question. So, for example, in a job situation, ideally, the only attributes we should be using to discriminate between candidates are their experience, knowledge, and ability to fulfill the duties of the position. If the job requires lifting heavy weights, discriminating upon your ability to lift heavy weights is fine. Discriminating based on sex (maybe justified because statistically most women are not strong enough to perform the duties) is not fine, because it is an indirect attribute. If this women meets the requirements it is irrelevant what other women can or cannot do. In this case with Uber and Lyft the city/state has the right (one could argue duty) to take steps to ensure the trustworthiness/safety of drivers operating commercial transportation services within its jurisdiction. Race does not say anything about the trustworthiness or criminal nature of a specific person. Even if, hypothetically, you assume that statistically one race is more prone to violence than another that does not speak directly about this candidate. It is an indirect measure like the example of sex above. An accurate background check, however, can shed light on facts in a person's past that are directly relevant to that question.
paulmd 10y ago
There's actually not. Unless it infringes on a protected class (eg "no black people") or a fundamental liberty interest, the "rational basis" standard prevails. This basically means that if a hypothetical reason could be articulated to support a public interest it's legal, even if it does not actually achieve that goal in practice. This becomes particularly broad when you're talking about actions in public. So while it would probably be considered an intrusion to send the Dental Police into everyone's home to be sure that they floss daily, it would probably be legal to have the Dental Police perform mandatory tooth-brushings on all taxi drivers. Nobody is forcing you to be a taxi driver and you could reasonably avoid the situation by practicing another profession instead. That's how you get stuff like requiring hair nets for food safety. But again, it doesn't necessarily have to be sensical. Unless otherwise restricted, states and cities have an enormous amount of leeway to do whatever they think is in their citizens' best interests. It's a list of things you can't do, not a list of things you can. If Austin wants to fingerprint taxi drivers, that's well within their powers. Not even controversial - that has been common practice for probably a half century now.