4 ms·

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 stea

by 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.
  - eridius 10y ago
    You're dramatically underestimating how many people will fail to report a crime (especially a sexual assault). Besides, even one crime is one too many. You can't assume the driver is going to act in a totally rational manner, they will commit crimes (and we've already seen Uber drivers committing crimes).
    - darawk 10y ago
      Right, but those crimes are contained and self-limiting and as such don't justify government intervention. Government cannot stop all crimes, and the tradeoff here just isn't worth the very very minor reduction in crime that might result.
      - eridius 10y ago
        Whaaa? Government can't stop all crimes, therefore we shouldn't even make the slightest effort to check if there's a reasonable chance somebody put into a position of power over others is likely to commit violent crimes? That's utter nonsense.
        darawk 10y ago
        Making an 'effort to check': - Imposes an enormous regulatory burden and cost on companies, which they then pass on to consumers and use as a moat against competition - Excludes tons of ex-convicts who are perfectly capable of doing the job from doing it and thereby increases their likelihood of reoffending. This isn't a case of "oh we can reduce violent crime in exchange for nothing". There is no free lunch. There are very real, very significant costs to implementing a law like this. And the simple fact of the matter is that those costs overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits in this particular case. The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. The social and economic cost is huge.
        eridius 10y ago
        > Excludes tons of ex-convicts Well yes, that's the whole point. Exclude the people who committed certain classes of crimes from being drivers. They can go get other jobs that don't have the same opportunistic crime risk. I'm not advocating for the idea that every single crime, no matter what, would exclude you, I'm just saying that certain classes of crimes, including violent crimes and sexual assault, definitely mean you shouldn't be an Uber driver. > The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. Statement not backed up by evidence. > The social and economic cost is huge. Neither is this. Certainly, doing background checks is a cost that Uber would have to pay, but it's a far cry from saying that this cost is "huge" or implying it's a burden on everybody. As for social cost, I don't even understand what you're claiming the social cost is. There's a huge social cost when people don't feel like it's safe for them to get into an Uber alone. There's very little social cost to saying that certain types of criminals cannot be Uber drivers.

by darawk 10y ago

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.
- eridius 10y ago
  You're dramatically underestimating how many people will fail to report a crime (especially a sexual assault). Besides, even one crime is one too many. You can't assume the driver is going to act in a totally rational manner, they will commit crimes (and we've already seen Uber drivers committing crimes).
  - darawk 10y ago
    Right, but those crimes are contained and self-limiting and as such don't justify government intervention. Government cannot stop all crimes, and the tradeoff here just isn't worth the very very minor reduction in crime that might result.
    - eridius 10y ago
      Whaaa? Government can't stop all crimes, therefore we shouldn't even make the slightest effort to check if there's a reasonable chance somebody put into a position of power over others is likely to commit violent crimes? That's utter nonsense.
      - darawk 10y ago
        Making an 'effort to check': - Imposes an enormous regulatory burden and cost on companies, which they then pass on to consumers and use as a moat against competition - Excludes tons of ex-convicts who are perfectly capable of doing the job from doing it and thereby increases their likelihood of reoffending. This isn't a case of "oh we can reduce violent crime in exchange for nothing". There is no free lunch. There are very real, very significant costs to implementing a law like this. And the simple fact of the matter is that those costs overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits in this particular case. The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. The social and economic cost is huge.
        eridius 10y ago
        > Excludes tons of ex-convicts Well yes, that's the whole point. Exclude the people who committed certain classes of crimes from being drivers. They can go get other jobs that don't have the same opportunistic crime risk. I'm not advocating for the idea that every single crime, no matter what, would exclude you, I'm just saying that certain classes of crimes, including violent crimes and sexual assault, definitely mean you shouldn't be an Uber driver. > The number of crimes that would be prevented is tiny. Statement not backed up by evidence. > The social and economic cost is huge. Neither is this. Certainly, doing background checks is a cost that Uber would have to pay, but it's a far cry from saying that this cost is "huge" or implying it's a burden on everybody. As for social cost, I don't even understand what you're claiming the social cost is. There's a huge social cost when people don't feel like it's safe for them to get into an Uber alone. There's very little social cost to saying that certain types of criminals cannot be Uber drivers.