6 ms·

This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive. The fact that an Uber driver killed someone does not mean anything abou

by darawk 10y ago

This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive. The fact that an Uber driver killed someone does not mean anything about Uber drivers. The fact that this person drove for Uber is completely incidental to their behavior. The idea that we need to start imposing regulations to 'solve' this complete non-problem is staggeringly stupid. If this were actually a problem, and people actually cared about this, then Lyft would start doing extensive background checks and everyone would switch. But they don't. Instead they ask the government to impose regulation generalizing from the fear of isolated incidents. Nobody asks the only question that actually matters: Does being an Uber driver make a violent criminal more likely to commit a violent crime? If the answer is 'no', then the only reason for sanitizing Uber drivers is to avoid these people committing crimes outside their own neighborhoods, with all of the racial and socioeconomic implications that has. The soccer-momification (let's define that precisely as acts of security theater: the TSA, licensure of taxi drivers, licensure of hair stylists, etc..) of business is a profound drag on our economy and society, and more likely than not creates more violent crime by preventing criminals from pulling themselves up out of poverty.

dionidium 10y ago
Does being an Uber driver make a violent criminal more likely to commit a violent crime? The actual question: should a person who is more likely to commit a violent crime be allowed to hold any job?
st3v3r 10y ago
"This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive." No, it's not. Uber is directly responsible for the people it allows on it's platform. As such, they should be doing everything they can to make sure those people they allow on their platform are not going to be doing things like this. "The soccer-momification" That's when I knew you don't need to be taken seriously.
- darawk 10y ago
  In what way are they responsible? Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company? Sure, if an employee cuts corners to save the company money and earn a promotion, yes, that's the company's fault. But if a teller shoots some guy that walks in, is that really the bank's fault?
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "In what way are they responsible? " They dispatched the driver to the person. "Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company?" Because they're still acting on behalf of the company.
    - darawk 10y ago
      This is obviously not true in general. If it were, business would grind to a halt. Businesses cannot be responsible for every action that any employee might take while on the job. What does this suggest? That arguments in absolute terms on either side are wrong. Which further suggests that there is some balance to be struck between responsibility and efficiency - between negative externalities and economic productivity. The litmus test that I posit makes sense here is one of two things: - High-impact correlated risk - Inability of the market to compensate for the issue (due to informational asymmetries or agency problems, say) An example of the first might be nuclear weapons or pharmaceuticals. An example of the second might be restaurants food safety (attribution of sickness to a particular place, and estimation of sanitariness are difficult). I don't think uber meets either of these standards. Certainly there is no high-impact correlated risk. Which leaves inability of the market to provide this safety net. Pretty clearly, an Uber competitor could emerge that advertises the thoroughness of its background checks, and charges a premium for this service. If people want it, they'll use it. If they don't, it'll die. There is no need for the government to step in here.
URSpider94 10y ago
I disagree with your probability equation. The question I should ask is "does being a violent criminal make it more likely that an Uber driver will attack a passenger?" I'd bet good money that the answer is yes. Being alone in someone else's car, potentially late at night and far from home, puts you at an extreme disadvantage -- it's a very dangerous situation that you would ordinarily stay far away from, unless you had a good reason to believe that you would be safe. I am not in general a fan of security theater, but I think that doing thorough background checks of for-hire drivers for relevant offenses such as moving violations, alcohol- or drug-related arrests and violent crimes is just smart.
- darawk 10y ago
  I think if that is the case and it proves to be a pervasive problem, the market will sort it out pretty cleanly. If Uber drivers assaulting people becomes sufficiently common that people are willing to pay more, someone will create a solution to this problem. This is something that the market should be able to solve extremely well on its own, without intervention from government. And there is no large correlated risk here or dearth of information for the public that should motivate the regulators to act.
  - URSpider94 10y ago
    I'm familiar with that argument. However, we've clearly decided as a society that that's not the path we want to take. We decided that we want the government to protect us from some baseline of risks, so that we don't have to spend all our time on which transportation service has the highest risk of being murdered by your driver, or which restaurant has the lowest risk of infecting you with typhoid.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Yes, my point is that that baseline has swung too far towards protectionist interventionism.
eridius 10y ago
> Does being an Uber driver make a violent criminal more likely to commit a violent crime? That's completely the wrong way to think about this. The real question is, should people who have been convicted of violent crimes be given jobs that puts them in a position of power over other people? Make no mistake, that's exactly what being an Uber driver is. Drivers are in a private 1-on-1 situation with customers where the driver has all of the power. The customer is literally putting their life into the driver's hands.
- darawk 10y ago
  Tons of jobs put you in a position of power over others. You can poison people's burgers at McDonalds. You can steal people's data if you're in IT. You can steal people's money if you're in finance. The only jobs that don't put you in some kind of position of power in our society are ultra low skilled minimum wage jobs, and even many of those give you some kind of power. It is unreasonable to exclude people from all of these jobs, so it makes sense to exclude them only from jobs where that power dynamic is particularly extreme, and I don't think driving an Uber qualifies.
  - eridius 10y ago
    You're making a false equivalence here. The big distinction with Uber drivers is it's a 1-on-1 situation with nobody else around, in an environment the driver controls. This is especially true late at night. Compare this with being a burger flipper at McDonalds, sure, you could conceivably poison a burger, but it's not very likely, nor is this really a situation that calls for an opportunistic crime anyway. The only reason why you'd poison a burger at McDonalds is if you're deliberately trying to assassinate your customer (or otherwise harm them), which means you're presumably targeting a specific person. Versus Uber driver where every single passenger is a potential opportunistic crime.
    - darawk 10y ago
      But it's also an opportunistic crime at which you'd be caught almost immediately. Supposing you rob or otherwise assault someone as an Uber driver, you can: a) Kill them. First thing they do is check his phone logs. Oh, he called an Uber? Let's talk to that driver. b) Rob/rape/etc them. Uber has perfect records of the identity of their drivers and who got in which car. You will be caught or at the very least banned from receiving fares instantly. These harms are completely self-limiting. You get one shot at a crime, at best.

by darawk 10y ago

dionidium 10y ago

Does being an Uber driver make a violent criminal more likely to commit a violent crime? The actual question: should a person who is more likely to commit a violent crime be allowed to hold any job?

st3v3r 10y ago

"This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive." No, it's not. Uber is directly responsible for the people it allows on it's platform. As such, they should be doing everything they can to make sure those people they allow on their platform are not going to be doing things like this. "The soccer-momification" That's when I knew you don't need to be taken seriously.

darawk 10y ago
In what way are they responsible? Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company? Sure, if an employee cuts corners to save the company money and earn a promotion, yes, that's the company's fault. But if a teller shoots some guy that walks in, is that really the bank's fault?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "In what way are they responsible? " They dispatched the driver to the person. "Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company?" Because they're still acting on behalf of the company.
  - darawk 10y ago
    This is obviously not true in general. If it were, business would grind to a halt. Businesses cannot be responsible for every action that any employee might take while on the job. What does this suggest? That arguments in absolute terms on either side are wrong. Which further suggests that there is some balance to be struck between responsibility and efficiency - between negative externalities and economic productivity. The litmus test that I posit makes sense here is one of two things: - High-impact correlated risk - Inability of the market to compensate for the issue (due to informational asymmetries or agency problems, say) An example of the first might be nuclear weapons or pharmaceuticals. An example of the second might be restaurants food safety (attribution of sickness to a particular place, and estimation of sanitariness are difficult). I don't think uber meets either of these standards. Certainly there is no high-impact correlated risk. Which leaves inability of the market to provide this safety net. Pretty clearly, an Uber competitor could emerge that advertises the thoroughness of its background checks, and charges a premium for this service. If people want it, they'll use it. If they don't, it'll die. There is no need for the government to step in here.

URSpider94 10y ago

I disagree with your probability equation. The question I should ask is "does being a violent criminal make it more likely that an Uber driver will attack a passenger?" I'd bet good money that the answer is yes. Being alone in someone else's car, potentially late at night and far from home, puts you at an extreme disadvantage -- it's a very dangerous situation that you would ordinarily stay far away from, unless you had a good reason to believe that you would be safe. I am not in general a fan of security theater, but I think that doing thorough background checks of for-hire drivers for relevant offenses such as moving violations, alcohol- or drug-related arrests and violent crimes is just smart.

darawk 10y ago
I think if that is the case and it proves to be a pervasive problem, the market will sort it out pretty cleanly. If Uber drivers assaulting people becomes sufficiently common that people are willing to pay more, someone will create a solution to this problem. This is something that the market should be able to solve extremely well on its own, without intervention from government. And there is no large correlated risk here or dearth of information for the public that should motivate the regulators to act.
- URSpider94 10y ago
  I'm familiar with that argument. However, we've clearly decided as a society that that's not the path we want to take. We decided that we want the government to protect us from some baseline of risks, so that we don't have to spend all our time on which transportation service has the highest risk of being murdered by your driver, or which restaurant has the lowest risk of infecting you with typhoid.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Yes, my point is that that baseline has swung too far towards protectionist interventionism.

eridius 10y ago

> Does being an Uber driver make a violent criminal more likely to commit a violent crime? That's completely the wrong way to think about this. The real question is, should people who have been convicted of violent crimes be given jobs that puts them in a position of power over other people? Make no mistake, that's exactly what being an Uber driver is. Drivers are in a private 1-on-1 situation with customers where the driver has all of the power. The customer is literally putting their life into the driver's hands.

darawk 10y ago
Tons of jobs put you in a position of power over others. You can poison people's burgers at McDonalds. You can steal people's data if you're in IT. You can steal people's money if you're in finance. The only jobs that don't put you in some kind of position of power in our society are ultra low skilled minimum wage jobs, and even many of those give you some kind of power. It is unreasonable to exclude people from all of these jobs, so it makes sense to exclude them only from jobs where that power dynamic is particularly extreme, and I don't think driving an Uber qualifies.
- eridius 10y ago
  You're making a false equivalence here. The big distinction with Uber drivers is it's a 1-on-1 situation with nobody else around, in an environment the driver controls. This is especially true late at night. Compare this with being a burger flipper at McDonalds, sure, you could conceivably poison a burger, but it's not very likely, nor is this really a situation that calls for an opportunistic crime anyway. The only reason why you'd poison a burger at McDonalds is if you're deliberately trying to assassinate your customer (or otherwise harm them), which means you're presumably targeting a specific person. Versus Uber driver where every single passenger is a potential opportunistic crime.
  - darawk 10y ago
    But it's also an opportunistic crime at which you'd be caught almost immediately. Supposing you rob or otherwise assault someone as an Uber driver, you can: a) Kill them. First thing they do is check his phone logs. Oh, he called an Uber? Let's talk to that driver. b) Rob/rape/etc them. Uber has perfect records of the identity of their drivers and who got in which car. You will be caught or at the very least banned from receiving fares instantly. These harms are completely self-limiting. You get one shot at a crime, at best.