4 ms·

> Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls. Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? It woul

by 0x3f 9mo ago

> Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls. Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? It would be seen as an incredible overreach here. Then again, so would a drug test. Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? Depends on context. In finance or anything concerning children, yes. You’re given autonomy where others are vulnerable. On a construction site, on a factory floor, or in an office, where you’re constantly supervised, no. > Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group So are their passengers.
- 0x3f 9mo ago
  I'm more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints, than drivers are 'forced' to accept it, I suppose. Although I can't identify a clear harm or form of exploitation that would arise from Uber collecting prints, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe a better middle ground is the licensure part of the government does the fingerprinting. Although not all cities regulate Uber in this way.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints Every job and volunteer role at which I’ve needed to get fingerprinted outsources it. When I’ve collected fingerprints for a job, my firm never got a copy, just the report.
rayiner 9mo ago
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'. You seem to be redefining the word “vulnerable” to mean the opposite. Uber drivers disproportionately are men without full time jobs. That pool of people almost certainly has a higher likelihood of criminal behavior than the population as a whole. Assuming finger printing actually works (which I’m not sure), they’re exactly the people who should have more scrutiny.
- 0x3f 9mo ago
  I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    >The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above. This is how the vast majority of compliance regulations work. You the law abiding person don't want to file bank paperwork, or whatever, yet you do because some smaller portion of the population would fraudulently rob the population blind if we didn't.
    - 0x3f 9mo ago
      Well yes, that is how many things work, but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good. With banking, for example, I'd much prefer a low-touch technological solution. You could argue fingerprinting _is_ a low-touch technological solution, although I'm not sure it's particularly good at enforcing who is who at driving time.
      - pixl97 9mo ago
        >but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good Then step up and deeply think about the situation at hand and all it's ramifications. When you see Chesterton's Fence don't rip it out of the ground before you understand why it was built in the first place. Think of how you would make a system with the least problems (you can't solve all problems without infinite costs or infinite loss of freedom).
whiddershins 9mo ago
vulnerable how?
- 0x3f 9mo ago
  From my other reply: > I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
mminer237 9mo ago
In roles where you're trusted with a lot of power over other people, absolutely. You won't get fingerprinted in a restaurant or store, but everyone in a hospital or a school should be.
buellerbueller 9mo ago
Driving for Uber isn't a job, it is a gig, which is different, and why Uber doesn't have to give benefits or pay like it is a job. Uber spent TONS of money lobbying and electioneering for this position.
imtringued 9mo ago
Uber drivers have to verify their driver's license, so it should be pretty easy to keep track of abuse.
michaelt 9mo ago
In many countries, taxi licensing requires an ID/criminal background check, to ensure people with rape convictions don’t end up alone with drunk vulnerable people. It may not require fingerprinting, but it’s certainly stricter than many jobs.
- 0x3f 9mo ago
  Yeah, but that's the government doing the sensitive parts, typically.
keernan 9mo ago
Being fingerprinted is required to obtain a law license.

by 0x3f 9mo ago

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? Depends on context. In finance or anything concerning children, yes. You’re given autonomy where others are vulnerable. On a construction site, on a factory floor, or in an office, where you’re constantly supervised, no. > Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group So are their passengers.

0x3f 9mo ago
I'm more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints, than drivers are 'forced' to accept it, I suppose. Although I can't identify a clear harm or form of exploitation that would arise from Uber collecting prints, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe a better middle ground is the licensure part of the government does the fingerprinting. Although not all cities regulate Uber in this way.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints Every job and volunteer role at which I’ve needed to get fingerprinted outsources it. When I’ve collected fingerprints for a job, my firm never got a copy, just the report.

rayiner 9mo ago

> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'. You seem to be redefining the word “vulnerable” to mean the opposite. Uber drivers disproportionately are men without full time jobs. That pool of people almost certainly has a higher likelihood of criminal behavior than the population as a whole. Assuming finger printing actually works (which I’m not sure), they’re exactly the people who should have more scrutiny.

0x3f 9mo ago
I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
- pixl97 9mo ago
  >The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above. This is how the vast majority of compliance regulations work. You the law abiding person don't want to file bank paperwork, or whatever, yet you do because some smaller portion of the population would fraudulently rob the population blind if we didn't.
  - 0x3f 9mo ago
    Well yes, that is how many things work, but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good. With banking, for example, I'd much prefer a low-touch technological solution. You could argue fingerprinting _is_ a low-touch technological solution, although I'm not sure it's particularly good at enforcing who is who at driving time.
    - pixl97 9mo ago
      >but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good Then step up and deeply think about the situation at hand and all it's ramifications. When you see Chesterton's Fence don't rip it out of the ground before you understand why it was built in the first place. Think of how you would make a system with the least problems (you can't solve all problems without infinite costs or infinite loss of freedom).

whiddershins 9mo ago

vulnerable how?

0x3f 9mo ago
From my other reply: > I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.

mminer237 9mo ago

In roles where you're trusted with a lot of power over other people, absolutely. You won't get fingerprinted in a restaurant or store, but everyone in a hospital or a school should be.

buellerbueller 9mo ago

Driving for Uber isn't a job, it is a gig, which is different, and why Uber doesn't have to give benefits or pay like it is a job. Uber spent TONS of money lobbying and electioneering for this position.

imtringued 9mo ago

Uber drivers have to verify their driver's license, so it should be pretty easy to keep track of abuse.

michaelt 9mo ago

In many countries, taxi licensing requires an ID/criminal background check, to ensure people with rape convictions don’t end up alone with drunk vulnerable people. It may not require fingerprinting, but it’s certainly stricter than many jobs.

0x3f 9mo ago
Yeah, but that's the government doing the sensitive parts, typically.

keernan 9mo ago

Being fingerprinted is required to obtain a law license.