Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
Which is great until you get literally hammered by your driver, and the company argues that it's not liable for your injuries because all it does is arrange for the two of you to meet.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
Which is great until you get literally hammered by your driver, and the company argues that it's not liable for your injuries because all it does is arrange for the two of you to meet.
of course it's going to argue that it's not liable for damages.
that is what lawsuits are for. that is the basis of an adversarial trial-based legal system.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
And then nothing happens anyway. As you said yourself last page.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
Which is great until you get literally hammered by your driver, and the company argues that it's not liable for your injuries because all it does is arrange for the two of you to meet.
of course it's going to argue that it's not liable for damages.
that is what lawsuits are for. that is the basis of an adversarial trial-based legal system.
It is also part of the reason that the whole system of regulations is drawn up in the first place. So that people don't have to fight a powerful corporation in court.
And actually, it's worth discussing the whole "end user view" argument, because that's a viewpoint that pops up over and over again, and it's a very problematic one. The problem is that, like an iceberg, what the end user sees is only a small portion of what is going on. For example, for Uber to meet their goals of availability and price, it requires that they have a good amount of "slack" in their driver supply. Which sounds great until you realize that this comes with problems. Remember that for the lower tiers, it's BYOC, so you need people who have cars that meet your requirements. This is a pool of a certain size, especially when you consider that only a subset of those people are going to be interested. Once you hit the limits of that pool, you're going to need to expand it. The problem is that some of the more attractive choices (most notably loosening sign up requirements and offering auto financing to people with potentially bad credit) are also very problematic.
Looking at the end user view is shortsighted, because the end user view tends to be narrowly focused.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
And then nothing happens anyway. As you said yourself last page.
Yet? Early stages, man. Either regulation will catch up to Uber, improving some of the negative aspects or it will be effectively outlawed entirely, leading to (now that we've experienced the real alternative) a greater push for improvement in traditional taxis. Either outcome is better than the status quo. Worst case we wind up back at the status quo, and have lost nothing.
Also color me skeptical that the average taxi monopoly would just shrug and pay out if a driver attacked a rider with a hammer. And it's not like assaults by regulated taxi drivers are absolutely unheard of, as noted earlier in the thread.
And actually, it's worth discussing the whole "end user view" argument, because that's a viewpoint that pops up over and over again, and it's a very problematic one. The problem is that, like an iceberg, what the end user sees is only a small portion of what is going on. For example, for Uber to meet their goals of availability and price, it requires that they have a good amount of "slack" in their driver supply. Which sounds great until you realize that this comes with problems. Remember that for the lower tiers, it's BYOC, so you need people who have cars that meet your requirements. This is a pool of a certain size, especially when you consider that only a subset of those people are going to be interested. Once you hit the limits of that pool, you're going to need to expand it. The problem is that some of the more attractive choices (most notably loosening sign up requirements and offering auto financing to people with potentially bad credit) are also very problematic.
Looking at the end user view is shortsighted, because the end user view tends to be narrowly focused.
Looking at the end user view alone is shortsighted.
Looking at it at all is, like, a pretty important thing. Again, my experience in several metro areas was that taxis were a transportation option to be used only if desperate. That should be considered a problem.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
Which is great until you get literally hammered by your driver, and the company argues that it's not liable for your injuries because all it does is arrange for the two of you to meet.
of course it's going to argue that it's not liable for damages.
that is what lawsuits are for. that is the basis of an adversarial trial-based legal system.
It is also part of the reason that the whole system of regulations is drawn up in the first place. So that people don't have to fight a powerful corporation in court.
Right - we say up front through regulations that livery companies are liable for their drivers so that if a rider comes to harm, the company can be held accountable to making them whole.
(And yes, I get that the existing companies try this shit as well. It's scummy when they do it as well, which is why we shouldn't be trying to perpetuate the problem.)
According to an attendee, the comment made the audience gasp. An audience of GS employees.
That's sort of impressive, when you think about it.
This sort of stuff is why the thread narrative comes across as "saying fuck Uber: the fashionable cause of the day." What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Things that are interesting: how many ride-service vehicles should be licensed at a time in a metro area; when 'sharing' style services cross the line into outright employment; whether Uber or Lyft engages in better business practices; how new services compare with traditional taxi services; how local government licensing practices favor certain business models; whether there's any obligation on the part of businesses to comply with the spirit of regulations when they can escape by way of the letter; whether the answer to that last depends on the goodness of the regulation in question; what it even means to talk about 'obligations' on corporations; etc.
As far as I can tell, the absolute least interesting way to frame things is as a culture war issue / shibboleth test for dividing out silicon valley bros from real leftists.
According to an attendee, the comment made the audience gasp. An audience of GS employees.
That's sort of impressive, when you think about it. [/url]
This sort of stuff is why the thread narrative comes across as the "saying fuck Uber: the fashionable cause of the day." What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Things that are interesting: how many ride-service vehicles should be licensed at a time in a metro area; when 'sharing' style services cross the line into outright employment; whether Uber or Lyft engages in better business practices; how new services compare with traditional taxi services; how local government licensing practices favor certain business models; whether there's any obligation on the part of businesses to comply with the spirit of regulations when they can escape by way of the letter; whether the answer to that last depends on the goodness of the regulation in question; what it even means to talk about 'obligations' on corporations; etc.
As far as I can tell, the absolute least interesting way to frame things is as a culture war issue / shibboleth test for dividing out silicon valley bros from real leftists.
To you, perhaps.
I think others, inside this thread and out, are interested in the growing shape of the sillicon valley megacorp. Now I'm sure you can say "What, it's no different from old evil corporation bullshit" (you mentioned this before I believe) but that seems to be missing all the details to me. I mean, Google's motto is "Don't be evil". I think that kind of attitude is a reflection both of how these new companies see themselves and how others see them. It's a different image and mythology they are building. And I think, for all their attempts to pretend otherwise, it ends up in a place no better then previous corporate cultures.
"What on earth does this have to do with anything?" seems a rather silly question in light of the fact that you've already at least partially identified what it's about the sentence before. It's especially silly in light of you having been around long enough to know what AngelHedgie is on about here. It's all about the corporate culture and self-image of distruptive tech companies.
If that's not a conversation you want to have, fine, start talking about something else. You listed a bunch of other interesting ideas. Talk about them. And other people will talk about what they are interested in.
"Here’s the full list of all the data Uber is collecting and sending through its Android app (we’re checking to see if the iOS version works the same way):
– Accounts log (Email)
– App Activity (Name, PackageName, Process Number of activity, Processed id)
– App Data Usage (Cache size, code size, data size, name, package name)
– App Install (installed at, name, package name, unknown sources enabled, version code, version name)
– Battery (health, level, plugged, present, scale, status, technology, temperature, voltage)
– Device Info (board, brand, build version, cell number, device, device type, display, fingerprint, IP, MAC address, manufacturer, model, OS platform, product, SDK code, total disk space, unknown sources enabled)
– GPS (accuracy, altitude, latitude, longitude, provider, speed)
– MMS (from number, MMS at, MMS type, service number, to number)
– NetData (bytes received, bytes sent, connection type, interface type)
– PhoneCall (call duration, called at, from number, phone call type, to number)
– SMS (from number, service number, SMS at, SMS type, to number)
– TelephonyInfo (cell tower ID, cell tower latitude, cell tower longitude, IMEI, ISO country code, local area code, MEID, mobile country code, mobile network code, network name, network type, phone type, SIM serial number, SIM state, subscriber ID)
– WifiConnection (BSSID, IP, linkspeed, MAC addr, network ID, RSSI, SSID)
– WifiNeighbors (BSSID, capabilities, frequency, level, SSID)
– Root Check (root status code, root status reason code, root version, sig file version)
– Malware Info (algorithm confidence, app list, found malware, malware SDK version, package list, reason code, service list, sigfile version)"
Is it ironic that the company who published the report about how apps are collecting your information requests (as mandatory) to know the size of your organization and the revenue before it will let you download a full copy?
Your link doesn't show that almost every app does anything of the sort though.
Even location tracking is shown to occur in only less then half of apps. Gettnig down to things like accessing the address book or any of the other type of stuff listed in that link above and it's either not eevn shown or at a very low percentage.
"Here’s the full list of all the data Uber is collecting and sending through its Android app (we’re checking to see if the iOS version works the same way):
– Accounts log (Email)
– App Activity (Name, PackageName, Process Number of activity, Processed id)
– App Data Usage (Cache size, code size, data size, name, package name)
– App Install (installed at, name, package name, unknown sources enabled, version code, version name)
– Battery (health, level, plugged, present, scale, status, technology, temperature, voltage)
– Device Info (board, brand, build version, cell number, device, device type, display, fingerprint, IP, MAC address, manufacturer, model, OS platform, product, SDK code, total disk space, unknown sources enabled)
– GPS (accuracy, altitude, latitude, longitude, provider, speed)
– MMS (from number, MMS at, MMS type, service number, to number)
– NetData (bytes received, bytes sent, connection type, interface type)
– PhoneCall (call duration, called at, from number, phone call type, to number)
– SMS (from number, service number, SMS at, SMS type, to number)
– TelephonyInfo (cell tower ID, cell tower latitude, cell tower longitude, IMEI, ISO country code, local area code, MEID, mobile country code, mobile network code, network name, network type, phone type, SIM serial number, SIM state, subscriber ID)
– WifiConnection (BSSID, IP, linkspeed, MAC addr, network ID, RSSI, SSID)
– WifiNeighbors (BSSID, capabilities, frequency, level, SSID)
– Root Check (root status code, root status reason code, root version, sig file version)
– Malware Info (algorithm confidence, app list, found malware, malware SDK version, package list, reason code, service list, sigfile version)"
well first off, it does notify the user. That's what all those permissions you accept are for. But basically that list is a bunch of no brainer stuff.
Location: Uber needs to know where you are so you can get picked up. Surprise!
Contacts: For splitting fares with friends, inviting friends to use Uber
Phone: To call your Uber driver or for them to call you
Camera/Microphone: Uber has a function that lets you take a photo of your credit card for scanning
Wi-Fi Connection: Checks if you have internet and attempts to use the WiFi name to help determine your location
Device ID and Call Information: Allows access to your phone number and a unique ID for your device
Identity: Allows Android users to sign in and pay with one tap (using the Google Sign-In and Google Wallet services)
Photos/Media/Files: Uber says this is to “save data and cache mapping vectors.”
Most the device info stuff is probably for crash reporting. Also the root check is because some enterprising Uber drivers were faking their GPS location so they we always the closest driver to SFO for example.
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
Sorry, but that's a really bad argument to make. It doesn't matter if the driver is out there for 1 hour or 40, they're still a commercial driver for hire, and asking them to abide by basic safety requirements is a reasonable position. Just because someone is doing a job part time doesn't make the risks and requirements go away.
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
Sorry, but that's a really bad argument to make. It doesn't matter if the driver is out there for 1 hour or 40, they're still a commercial driver for hire, and asking them to abide by basic safety requirements is a reasonable position. Just because someone is doing a job part time doesn't make the risks and requirements go away.
How is an actual honest-to-God English literacy test a basic safety requirement?
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
Sorry, but that's a really bad argument to make. It doesn't matter if the driver is out there for 1 hour or 40, they're still a commercial driver for hire, and asking them to abide by basic safety requirements is a reasonable position. Just because someone is doing a job part time doesn't make the risks and requirements go away.
How is an actual honest-to-God English literacy test a basic safety requirement?
Also, a scheduled drug test, because if you've used marijuana in the past month or so then you shouldn't be allowed to have a job.
Oh and you must consent to the police "randomly" search your vehicle at any time.
Do the legacy cab companies have the same requirements? There's no indication in the article either way.
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
Sorry, but that's a really bad argument to make. It doesn't matter if the driver is out there for 1 hour or 40, they're still a commercial driver for hire, and asking them to abide by basic safety requirements is a reasonable position. Just because someone is doing a job part time doesn't make the risks and requirements go away.
How is an actual honest-to-God English literacy test a basic safety requirement?
Also, a scheduled drug test, because if you've used marijuana in the past month or so then you shouldn't be allowed to have a job.
Oh and you must consent to the police "randomly" search your vehicle at any time.
Do the legacy cab companies have the same requirements? There's no indication in the article either way.
The "random checks" mentioned in the article are mechanical, not legal - the TLC can pull a vehicle off the road and have it checked by one of their mechanics to verify that it is mechanically safe, and that it meets emission requirements. Which they already do with other commercial cars, IIRC.
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
Sorry, but that's a really bad argument to make. It doesn't matter if the driver is out there for 1 hour or 40, they're still a commercial driver for hire, and asking them to abide by basic safety requirements is a reasonable position. Just because someone is doing a job part time doesn't make the risks and requirements go away.
Just to be clear, you realize we are in agreement, right?
Wrote a whole "on the other hand" paragraph, just want to make sure my meaning wasn't lost.
Edit: basically I agree, and the issue of barrier is easily addressed if uber simply foots the bills and passes it along to riders.
I was also ignoring the scheduled drug test requirement, because that gets into a whole tangential topic I don't feel like touching.
Edit: I too am curious how these restrictions compare to those on current taxi drivers in the city. If they're the same? Meh. I have a hard time being outraged.
Basically, Uber wanted to open in PDX. PDX said "hey let's figure out how you can fit into our regulatory system." Uber decided to disrupt the market in the usual fashion by ignoring all those laws. Now, PDX's suit would shut down Uber in the city until they comply with local safety/health/consumer protection regulations.
Presumably if Uber loses they'd continue to operate because their business model is to break whatever laws they don't like and (crucially) be rich enough that it doesn't actually matter
Posts
Right. They're ignoring the regulation entirely. Which, from the POV of the user with the Uber app on their phone, is functionally equivalent. I can summon a taxi* quickly, painlessly, it will show up in a timely manner, and get me where I want to go in comfort. By comparison my experiences with traditional taxis* is that it may show up, it may not, and when it does it's probably gonna smell a whole lot like vomit. And maybe air freshener on top of the vomit. But the vomit will be there. And I'd have to accept it, because somebody thirty-four years ago spent a million dollars on a medallion or whatever, so that's just how it works.
And by completely ignoring the existing rules, they get to show the populace what the unregulated alternative actually looks like, rather than have it exist as a hypothetical in the argument between entrenched interests and those looking for change. We can point to the service and say "Look, there, see how that's working and not actually all that awful? And pretty damn good actually?"
* - Using "taxi" to refer to the combination of livery and taxi, both because "livery" is indeed a funky word to use in modern context and because in most metro areas that are not NYC or SF the two are largely equivalent (because your odds of hailing a taxi on the street are roughly zero). Also because my use of the app while standing on the street to summon an Uber within two minutes is functionally equivalent to hailing a cab, and does not at all reflect my past experiences with calling one traditionally.
Which is great until you get literally hammered by your driver, and the company argues that it's not liable for your injuries because all it does is arrange for the two of you to meet.
of course it's going to argue that it's not liable for damages.
that is what lawsuits are for. that is the basis of an adversarial trial-based legal system.
And then nothing happens anyway. As you said yourself last page.
It is also part of the reason that the whole system of regulations is drawn up in the first place. So that people don't have to fight a powerful corporation in court.
Looking at the end user view is shortsighted, because the end user view tends to be narrowly focused.
Yet? Early stages, man. Either regulation will catch up to Uber, improving some of the negative aspects or it will be effectively outlawed entirely, leading to (now that we've experienced the real alternative) a greater push for improvement in traditional taxis. Either outcome is better than the status quo. Worst case we wind up back at the status quo, and have lost nothing.
Also color me skeptical that the average taxi monopoly would just shrug and pay out if a driver attacked a rider with a hammer. And it's not like assaults by regulated taxi drivers are absolutely unheard of, as noted earlier in the thread.
Looking at the end user view alone is shortsighted.
Looking at it at all is, like, a pretty important thing. Again, my experience in several metro areas was that taxis were a transportation option to be used only if desperate. That should be considered a problem.
Right - we say up front through regulations that livery companies are liable for their drivers so that if a rider comes to harm, the company can be held accountable to making them whole.
(And yes, I get that the existing companies try this shit as well. It's scummy when they do it as well, which is why we shouldn't be trying to perpetuate the problem.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This sort of stuff is why the thread narrative comes across as "saying fuck Uber: the fashionable cause of the day." What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Things that are interesting: how many ride-service vehicles should be licensed at a time in a metro area; when 'sharing' style services cross the line into outright employment; whether Uber or Lyft engages in better business practices; how new services compare with traditional taxi services; how local government licensing practices favor certain business models; whether there's any obligation on the part of businesses to comply with the spirit of regulations when they can escape by way of the letter; whether the answer to that last depends on the goodness of the regulation in question; what it even means to talk about 'obligations' on corporations; etc.
As far as I can tell, the absolute least interesting way to frame things is as a culture war issue / shibboleth test for dividing out silicon valley bros from real leftists.
To you, perhaps.
I think others, inside this thread and out, are interested in the growing shape of the sillicon valley megacorp. Now I'm sure you can say "What, it's no different from old evil corporation bullshit" (you mentioned this before I believe) but that seems to be missing all the details to me. I mean, Google's motto is "Don't be evil". I think that kind of attitude is a reflection both of how these new companies see themselves and how others see them. It's a different image and mythology they are building. And I think, for all their attempts to pretend otherwise, it ends up in a place no better then previous corporate cultures.
"What on earth does this have to do with anything?" seems a rather silly question in light of the fact that you've already at least partially identified what it's about the sentence before. It's especially silly in light of you having been around long enough to know what AngelHedgie is on about here. It's all about the corporate culture and self-image of distruptive tech companies.
If that's not a conversation you want to have, fine, start talking about something else. You listed a bunch of other interesting ideas. Talk about them. And other people will talk about what they are interested in.
It's certainly valued like one
See: http://www.cultofmac.com/304401/ubers-android-app-literally-malware/
"Here’s the full list of all the data Uber is collecting and sending through its Android app (we’re checking to see if the iOS version works the same way):
– Accounts log (Email)
– App Activity (Name, PackageName, Process Number of activity, Processed id)
– App Data Usage (Cache size, code size, data size, name, package name)
– App Install (installed at, name, package name, unknown sources enabled, version code, version name)
– Battery (health, level, plugged, present, scale, status, technology, temperature, voltage)
– Device Info (board, brand, build version, cell number, device, device type, display, fingerprint, IP, MAC address, manufacturer, model, OS platform, product, SDK code, total disk space, unknown sources enabled)
– GPS (accuracy, altitude, latitude, longitude, provider, speed)
– MMS (from number, MMS at, MMS type, service number, to number)
– NetData (bytes received, bytes sent, connection type, interface type)
– PhoneCall (call duration, called at, from number, phone call type, to number)
– SMS (from number, service number, SMS at, SMS type, to number)
– TelephonyInfo (cell tower ID, cell tower latitude, cell tower longitude, IMEI, ISO country code, local area code, MEID, mobile country code, mobile network code, network name, network type, phone type, SIM serial number, SIM state, subscriber ID)
– WifiConnection (BSSID, IP, linkspeed, MAC addr, network ID, RSSI, SSID)
– WifiNeighbors (BSSID, capabilities, frequency, level, SSID)
– Root Check (root status code, root status reason code, root version, sig file version)
– Malware Info (algorithm confidence, app list, found malware, malware SDK version, package list, reason code, service list, sigfile version)"
It is?
Cite?
Even location tracking is shown to occur in only less then half of apps. Gettnig down to things like accessing the address book or any of the other type of stuff listed in that link above and it's either not eevn shown or at a very low percentage.
No, the data shown in that company's report is for free apps.
Yes, but the company your link is using as a source here:
https://www.appthority.com/resources
States in their 2013 App Reputation report the numbers I cited above is for free apps.
well first off, it does notify the user. That's what all those permissions you accept are for. But basically that list is a bunch of no brainer stuff.
http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/27/ubers-app-malware-despite-may-read/
Most the device info stuff is probably for crash reporting. Also the root check is because some enterprising Uber drivers were faking their GPS location so they we always the closest driver to SFO for example.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
About the only real concern I have is the fees and hoops creating a barrier to entry for part-time and occasional drivers.
On the other hand, there's no reason Uber can't cover those costs and roll it into a per-ride fee for San Antonia residents, whose representatives approved these measures. Call it the "We hate those dirty communists in the San Antonio government" fee if it makes you feel better. But it's not unworkable. $300 a year for a driver pulling in as few as six rides a week is still only $2 a ride, and it'd actually be mush lower (with most drivers doing more like six rides or more per day).
Sorry, but that's a really bad argument to make. It doesn't matter if the driver is out there for 1 hour or 40, they're still a commercial driver for hire, and asking them to abide by basic safety requirements is a reasonable position. Just because someone is doing a job part time doesn't make the risks and requirements go away.
How is an actual honest-to-God English literacy test a basic safety requirement?
Also, a scheduled drug test, because if you've used marijuana in the past month or so then you shouldn't be allowed to have a job.
Oh and you must consent to the police "randomly" search your vehicle at any time.
Do the legacy cab companies have the same requirements? There's no indication in the article either way.
The "random checks" mentioned in the article are mechanical, not legal - the TLC can pull a vehicle off the road and have it checked by one of their mechanics to verify that it is mechanically safe, and that it meets emission requirements. Which they already do with other commercial cars, IIRC.
Just to be clear, you realize we are in agreement, right?
Wrote a whole "on the other hand" paragraph, just want to make sure my meaning wasn't lost.
Edit: basically I agree, and the issue of barrier is easily addressed if uber simply foots the bills and passes it along to riders.
Edit: I too am curious how these restrictions compare to those on current taxi drivers in the city. If they're the same? Meh. I have a hard time being outraged.
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/portland-oregon-sues-stop-uber-online-car-service-n264601
Basically, Uber wanted to open in PDX. PDX said "hey let's figure out how you can fit into our regulatory system." Uber decided to disrupt the market in the usual fashion by ignoring all those laws. Now, PDX's suit would shut down Uber in the city until they comply with local safety/health/consumer protection regulations.
Presumably if Uber loses they'd continue to operate because their business model is to break whatever laws they don't like and (crucially) be rich enough that it doesn't actually matter