8 ms·

Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

107 points by webhat 12y ago

debacle 12y ago
> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in today’s e-mail. Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.
- brokenmusic 12y ago
  It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
  - efbbbf 12y ago
    >If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. What about the client's rights?
    - briandear 12y ago
      I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming. However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=151571 http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
      - prostoalex 12y ago
        > assuming the client has provided an informed consent How would the client be informed on issues such as * proper vehicle maintenance records * prior criminal record * history of accidents and insurance claims * presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
        PKop 12y ago
        If you ran a taxi service, in a competitive market, would you offer this information to your customers? You know they would want to know about it. So you would, correct? Probably because you would then earn their business over your competitors, right? If your answer is no, then why not? What if your competitors did, would you then?
    - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
      Are they being abridged in any way? If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum? The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
      - twoodfin 12y ago
        I wonder how HN'ers would feel if the U.S. government decided to respond to a "cybersecurity crisis" by requiring licensure and fulfillment of a host of legal requirements (such as posting a bond or insurance) before anyone can program or administer any public-facing computer. After all, they'd just be looking out for the public interest. Surely no one wants laissez faire software development! That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
      - king_jester 12y ago
        > But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all. That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged. Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
        DanielBMarkham 12y ago
        You are quite right about the reason for carriage laws. They're right out of two centuries ago, where a person who got into a conveyance had no idea what they might be getting into. Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish. The 1800s are long gone. Time to move on.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    >If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet. Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.
      - valarauca1 12y ago
        Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc. Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service. The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
        humanrebar 12y ago
        No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it. We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not. So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council. Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview. Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
    - fennecfoxen 12y ago
      On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
      - justincormack 12y ago
        But London already has deregulated taxis (minicabs) that Uber could perfectly well follow the regulations for (ie quote price upfront).
      - matthewmacleod 12y ago
        Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."
        DanBC 12y ago
        "The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility. [1] is language like that useful?
  - FollowSteph3 12y ago
    I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.
    - dchest 12y ago
      I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? Correct.
      - hobs 12y ago
        You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition. No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!
        brokenmusic 12y ago
        Exactly, my house, not yours. That's why I'm responsible for choosing a reputable electrician, not you.
        noelwelsh 12y ago
        It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.
        valarauca1 12y ago
        Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die? The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
        happyscrappy 12y ago
        It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die. Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.
  - orbifold 12y ago
    So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.
  - bane 12y ago
    The FARC funded a big portion of their operations off of unregulated/poorly regulated taxi service. It's a lot easier to kidnap somebody when they willfully get in the car you intend to kidnap them in.
- gnu8 12y ago
  The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.
  - wozniacki 12y ago
    I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith : Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks? I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.
      - pc86 12y ago
        Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.
        12y ago
jastr 12y ago
"...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..." "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..." So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!
- saalweachter 12y ago
  Do convicts in South Korea get a choice? I'm assuming the judge decrees a sentence and the convicted serve it, not that you're given the choice between going to jail and paying a fine.
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine or 6 months in prison." - that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.
  - juliangregorian 12y ago
    Yup, because if you don't have $500 you're probably one of those homeless criminal types and should be locked up anyway. I've noticed this too, is this a relic from the times when the dollar amount would have been a lot more proportionate to time served?
- markburns 12y ago
  This kind of discrepancy seems more like a penalty for being poor _and_ breaking the law.
Shizka 12y ago
> "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905) to people who provide information on Uber’s services. " > "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]" Can anyone clarify this for me? I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly illogical to me if this is the case.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  There are lots of crimes in the US punishable by a year in prison or a fine of up to $1k. I suspect the fines are leftover from when $1k was significantly more money.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  Like US law you can be fined for a crime OR serve time (proper Boolean or: one, the other, both). The fine/prison limits are maximum, and decided on sentencing.
- Sharlin 12y ago
  Presumably it's just about degrees of severity. If the case is decreed minor enough, the punishment is a fine up to $20.000; if it's more severe, the penalty is a prison sentence of some months up to 24 months in the most severe case.
cpplinuxdude 12y ago
> "worries over the safety of consumers" Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?
- noelwelsh 12y ago
  Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it. Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.
  - austerity 12y ago
    I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp, Facebook, etc.).
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      Just because information can be disseminated to the general public does not mean that it is understood or acknowledged when making a decision.
    - noelwelsh 12y ago
      You generally want some guarantees before you consume the service. Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone I know; the doctor was of course struck off). As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market-uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the way that government licensing services are.
bello 12y ago
To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't they just ban/fine the company instead?
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  Depends heavily on the kind of law, and the kind of company. In the US, the main attraction of being a LLC is that the liability, for the most part, stops at the juridical person level, with natural persons being protected. Doesn't apply to this case, as SK law is probably radically different.
- PMan74 12y ago
  IANAL but (in Ireland) liability usually stops with the company unless the directors are shown to have acted outside company law. Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do what we want" - in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.
- theli0nheart 12y ago
  Legally, maybe yes, maybe no. But morally? I say yes. Corporations are not autonomous blobs bereft of accountability.
- rokhayakebe 12y ago
  FYI laws are very local.
handle_bars 12y ago
I'm very happy that South Korea has taken these steps. That serves as a very clear indication that Seoul does not want Uber declaring their own law on the country.
wonjun 12y ago
The issue goes beyond the technology and law. It's more about the culture of place where Uber operates in. Making a living as a taxi driver in Seoul is different from how it is to do the same in San Francisco. Consumers have different expectations and are wary about different safety issues. This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in developing the technology, but not in operations. Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.

107 points by webhat 12y ago

> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in today’s e-mail. Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.

brokenmusic 12y ago
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
- efbbbf 12y ago
  >If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. What about the client's rights?
  - briandear 12y ago
    I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming. However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=151571 http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
    - prostoalex 12y ago
      > assuming the client has provided an informed consent How would the client be informed on issues such as * proper vehicle maintenance records * prior criminal record * history of accidents and insurance claims * presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
      - PKop 12y ago
        If you ran a taxi service, in a competitive market, would you offer this information to your customers? You know they would want to know about it. So you would, correct? Probably because you would then earn their business over your competitors, right? If your answer is no, then why not? What if your competitors did, would you then?
  - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
    Are they being abridged in any way? If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum? The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
    - twoodfin 12y ago
      I wonder how HN'ers would feel if the U.S. government decided to respond to a "cybersecurity crisis" by requiring licensure and fulfillment of a host of legal requirements (such as posting a bond or insurance) before anyone can program or administer any public-facing computer. After all, they'd just be looking out for the public interest. Surely no one wants laissez faire software development! That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
    - king_jester 12y ago
      > But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all. That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged. Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
      - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
        You are quite right about the reason for carriage laws. They're right out of two centuries ago, where a person who got into a conveyance had no idea what they might be getting into. Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish. The 1800s are long gone. Time to move on.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  >If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet. Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc. Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service. The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
      - humanrebar 12y ago
        No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it. We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not. So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council. Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview. Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
    - justincormack 12y ago
      But London already has deregulated taxis (minicabs) that Uber could perfectly well follow the regulations for (ie quote price upfront).
    - matthewmacleod 12y ago
      Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."
      - DanBC 12y ago
        "The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility. [1] is language like that useful?
- FollowSteph3 12y ago
  I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.
  - dchest 12y ago
    I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? Correct.
    - hobs 12y ago
      You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition. No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!
      - brokenmusic 12y ago
        Exactly, my house, not yours. That's why I'm responsible for choosing a reputable electrician, not you.
        noelwelsh 12y ago
        It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.
        valarauca1 12y ago
        Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die? The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
      - happyscrappy 12y ago
        It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die. Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.
- orbifold 12y ago
  So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.
- bane 12y ago
  The FARC funded a big portion of their operations off of unregulated/poorly regulated taxi service. It's a lot easier to kidnap somebody when they willfully get in the car you intend to kidnap them in.
gnu8 12y ago
The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith : Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks? I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.
    - pc86 12y ago
      Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.
      - 12y ago

jastr 12y ago

"...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..." "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..." So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!

saalweachter 12y ago
Do convicts in South Korea get a choice? I'm assuming the judge decrees a sentence and the convicted serve it, not that you're given the choice between going to jail and paying a fine.
colinbartlett 12y ago
This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine or 6 months in prison." - that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.
- juliangregorian 12y ago
  Yup, because if you don't have $500 you're probably one of those homeless criminal types and should be locked up anyway. I've noticed this too, is this a relic from the times when the dollar amount would have been a lot more proportionate to time served?
markburns 12y ago
This kind of discrepancy seems more like a penalty for being poor _and_ breaking the law.

Shizka 12y ago

> "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905) to people who provide information on Uber’s services. " > "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]" Can anyone clarify this for me? I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly illogical to me if this is the case.

ceejayoz 12y ago
There are lots of crimes in the US punishable by a year in prison or a fine of up to $1k. I suspect the fines are leftover from when $1k was significantly more money.
valarauca1 12y ago
Like US law you can be fined for a crime OR serve time (proper Boolean or: one, the other, both). The fine/prison limits are maximum, and decided on sentencing.
Sharlin 12y ago
Presumably it's just about degrees of severity. If the case is decreed minor enough, the punishment is a fine up to $20.000; if it's more severe, the penalty is a prison sentence of some months up to 24 months in the most severe case.

cpplinuxdude 12y ago

> "worries over the safety of consumers" Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

noelwelsh 12y ago
Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it. Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.
- austerity 12y ago
  I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp, Facebook, etc.).
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    Just because information can be disseminated to the general public does not mean that it is understood or acknowledged when making a decision.
  - noelwelsh 12y ago
    You generally want some guarantees before you consume the service. Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone I know; the doctor was of course struck off). As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market-uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the way that government licensing services are.

bello 12y ago

To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't they just ban/fine the company instead?

lclarkmichalek 12y ago
Depends heavily on the kind of law, and the kind of company. In the US, the main attraction of being a LLC is that the liability, for the most part, stops at the juridical person level, with natural persons being protected. Doesn't apply to this case, as SK law is probably radically different.
PMan74 12y ago
IANAL but (in Ireland) liability usually stops with the company unless the directors are shown to have acted outside company law. Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do what we want" - in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.
theli0nheart 12y ago
Legally, maybe yes, maybe no. But morally? I say yes. Corporations are not autonomous blobs bereft of accountability.
rokhayakebe 12y ago
FYI laws are very local.

handle_bars 12y ago

I'm very happy that South Korea has taken these steps. That serves as a very clear indication that Seoul does not want Uber declaring their own law on the country.

wonjun 12y ago

The issue goes beyond the technology and law. It's more about the culture of place where Uber operates in. Making a living as a taxi driver in Seoul is different from how it is to do the same in San Francisco. Consumers have different expectations and are wary about different safety issues. This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in developing the technology, but not in operations. Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.