Hacker News Reader

Comment by suprgeek | Hacker News Reader

Every single recent (and not so recent) item about Uber screams ethically & morally bankrupt scumbags who would soon as throw you under a bus (or an Uber) if it meant making a fast buck.

1) In the New Delhi Uber rape case -they failed to verify the driver who was a repeat offender, they had no call number and no way to access drive logs from India.

2) As others have pointed out - the concept of privacy at Uber is tragically laughable (Rides-of-glory, God Mode, Using riders info for non-ride purposes etc etc)

3) Playing dirty with competitors is encouraged

4) The VP who boasted of hiring a hit team to dig up dirt on Journalists families is still working at Uber after saying this in a very public forum.

And this is just the recent stuff. Why anyone would patronize this scummy company is really beyond comprehension.

[1] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/after-vi...

View on HN

As a New Delhi resident, the latest incident is the last straw.

They advertise that they do background checks and that they are a safe transportation option. But clearly, they don't.

Based on this, I have recommended Uber to several friends of mine. One of them could have easily been the victim in the recent case.

This is inexcusable and unpardonable and betrayal to the point of no return. Sorry Uber, I'm deleting your app and will tell EACH and EVERY person I meet to do the same.

If the Indian government does not cancel your permit (which they should, for flagrantly ignoring laws), I hope the consumers vote with their wallet and drive Uber out of India due to lack of customers.

This is the only way companies will learn that "move fast and break things" is acceptable only if you are a social networking website where breaking things does not result in someone's life being completely ruined.

> The VP who boasted of hiring a hit team to dig up dirt on Journalists families is still working at Uber after saying this in a very public forum.

This point has obviously been through a few rounds of "telephone".

"boasted of hiring a hit team"--he suggested it as a hypothetical idea, he didn't "boast" of already doing it, nor is there any indication he did

"in a very public forum"--he said it at a private dinner party where comments were understood to be off the record, but someone brought a +1 and didn't read him into this so he ran with it.

He was just drunk and made an offhanded joke. Come on people, we make offensive jokes all the time. The difference is that people laugh our jokes off and for him, a reporter picked it up and ran with it.

I'm not trying to defend Uber with any of the other stuff, I just think that one particular thing was blown up a little bit more than was necessary.

I prefer Lyft anyway.

lol when will people learn not to drink & make stupid jokes in public ;)

People in positions of power are held accountable when they don't take things they're responsible for seriously.

You could joke about fucking with people's privacy because you don't have a huge database of abortion clinic visits and one night stands and children's daycare locations. As soon as you did, people would start holding you accountable.

His comments were not a joke, but a direct threat against a particular journalist and her family.

in vino veritas

If the guy is dumb or arrogant enough to get drunk and make off-the-cuff offensive jokes about the press in front of the press and his boss then he should be fired promptly. That he wasn't speaks volumes.

Senior executives of billion-dollar companies do not accidentally have dinner with reporters. The dinner was part of a PR effort. Maybe the guy's really a rube or a loose canon. But personally, my guess is that he "joked" about harming a journalist whose coverage they didn't like because he wanted other journalists to think twice about giving them bad coverage.

I don't really want to restart that whole argument again, I just want to point out that in these firestorms of outrage, the actual truth of the matter can take a lot of the damage.

>Come on people, we make offensive jokes all the time. >I'm not trying to defend Uber with any of the other stuff

Sorry to break it down to you, but you're infact defending Uber.

> "in a very public forum"--he said it at a private dinner party where comments were understood to be off the record, but someone brought a +1 and didn't read him into this so he ran with it.

You know, I never did go back and find out how the Romney 47% leaks actually made it out the door. I wonder if it's public knowledge at this point.

A staff member of the catering company. It was very fight club.

The squealing about the very sane idea of doing some journalism on journalists is very lulzy. I don't trust Uber and have never given them business. I trust the NYTimes even less and will never give them a cent. They are crooks who lied us into war. They are now owned by the monopolist Carlos Slim who lies to us about telecom and immigration issues relevant to his business interests.

In the golden age of American journalism the idea of doing hit pieces on journalists wouldn't even be interesting. Mencken and friends did it to each other constantly. It's hilarious these people think they're part of some unassailable priesthood now.

It's even more shameful that investors keep rewarding them for this attitude. It really makes me hope Uber goes up in flames like Groupon.

>Why anyone would patronize this scummy company is really beyond comprehension.

They patronize it because it solves a major problem that people have. People will continue to do so for that same reason. At the end of the day, people are selfish. They care that their problem gets solved; they don't care if a few journalists claim to feel threatened or that a criminal driver goes crazy every now and then (btw this also occurs in taxis, with much higher frequency).

I would say the only item you've brought up that even comes close to "morally bankrupt" is #3. While Uber has definitely used some dirty tricks to go after Lyft, my understanding is they've teamed up with them in going after regulatory issues.

The New Delhi rape case could have just as easily happened to Lyft. The infrastructure for background checks and criminal records in India is more or less nonexistent, so I doubt that Lyft would've been able to catch this driver before he committed a crime any more than Uber would've been able to. The incident is awful, but not Uber's fault. Moreover, would a taxi company be held responsible for a driver raping a passenger?

The examples of Uber violating privacy are sketchy at best. It appears that the god mode app is akin to Google's live search feature which displays thousands of real-time searches for demonstration purposes. The rides-of-glory incident was definitely a PR gaffe, but once again, far from morally bankrupt. If anything it was a play on the OKCupid-style data driven blog posts. I don't see anyone accusing them of being morally bankrupt.

As for the comments on digging up dirt on journalists, based on whats come out from OTHER sources at the private dinner (NOT a "very public forum" as you described it) it was taken out of context.

Its unfortunate that Uber is taking heat for so many things. I use Uber often and trust them with my data. I think anyone that is seriously troubled by the recent onslaught against Uber should take a moment to really think about whether they provide a genuine service or are just scumbags.

> The New Delhi rape case could have just as easily happened to Lyft.

No, not necessarily.

The key here is that each company is ultimately the responsible party for vetting the drivers that come to you.

Uber touts a rigorous background checking process but, as we've seen, time and time again, their background checking has been horrible/not actually existent.

> Moreover, would a taxi company be held responsible for a driver raping a passenger?

Yes! If not legally responsible, at the very least they are socially & morally responsible.

> The New Delhi rape case could have just as easily happened to Lyft. The infrastructure for background checks and criminal records in India is more or less nonexistent,

It's not about non-existent prevention mechanisms. It's about how difficult it is to contact Uber (at least in India), whether they took the responsibility of what happened, and whether they are going to invest time to take preventive measures instead of immorally running after competitors in India. Having a bad automated support at a company like Uber that deals with transporting flesh around is a sign of being morally irresponsible.

> The infrastructure for background checks and criminal records in India is more or less nonexistent, so I doubt that Lyft would've been able to catch this driver before he committed a crime any more than Uber would've been able to.

Yes, blame it on the system. Never mind that Uber performed NO checks; never mind that the guy's record was revealed shortly after his arrest, indicating that had Uber performed a check they stood a good chance of finding the same out.

While India's police system is not perfect, Uber's attitude is downright arrogant: "it is you natives and your cops who are to blame". The law mandates a background check, you didn't follow the mandate. The least you can do is to own up to that.

"The infrastructure for background checks and criminal records in India is more or less nonexistent"

Duh. Not true. It is not a perfect system, but there is a system of police verification. If someone has gone to jail for rape, (as this driver has) the check would bring it up.

Besides the point isn't whether the system is perfect. The point is that Uber didn't bother using the system or following the laws of the land and plays fast and loose with claims of "verification of drivers".

From Uber CEO Travis Kalanick "We will work with the government to establish clear background checks currently absent in their commercial transportation licensing programs"

He makes it sound like it is the government's fault. No, background checks are not "currently absent" in transportation licensing.

Police verification of taxi/transport drivers is mandated by law. Uber ignored this law (as it ignores many laws, all over the world). Now this lowlife blames the government/Indian laws.

You can't decide not to follow laws because you think them "incomplete", and then not get blamed when such avoidance bites you in the ass.

What a dick. "Safest rides on the road" my ass.

The police in India are morally bankrupt. A background check by them carries little value.

I'm sure you've sources to backup your claim.

The culprit allegedly paid 5000 rupees to Delhi Police and got "Character" Certificate.

What happened in Delhi is tragic -- and no one would want such a dreadful thing to happen to anyone, anywhere.

Yes, Uber did not vet the driver enough. But "police verification" in India is a big joke. You pretty much go to one station and find out if there are crimes committed by a person in that locality. There really isn't an exchange of information across stations across cities about a person's criminal record. So, you can only do so much in this country, where a lot of such information needs to be made more easily accessible even to law enforcement agencies themselves. In fact, the government itself is mulling doing away with such verification requirements for government jobs as the police reports are often perfunctory (link: http://bit.ly/1lJ1vRy ).

Regarding Uber's service in India, I have taken over 40 rides in the past year and find it to be the most reliable taxi service in town. In fact, I find it to be far safer when the women and kids in my family ride an Uber vis-a-vis other transportation services. I know fully well that endorsing Uber when a lot of folks are outraging about the firm over the latest controversy du jour may not really come across well -- but I personally feel that the alternatives in India are far worse and definitely not 100% crime free.

You are making a claim that because doing a police verification is hard, Uber should not be doing even the most basic checks it is required to do by law. Delhi Taxi laws require police verifications and a non disableable GPS, Uber failed in both. I would expect Uber to do more checks than the minimum required by law, not less.

I have taken more than a 100 trips with Uber. https://www.dropbox.com/s/v2ypioshi4z8zlh/Screenshot%202014-...

I am evaluating if I should continue using them now. Its hard as they are so convenient, but if they have to blatant disregard of the basic security procedures, I will find something else.

I am making a claim that "police verification" is hogwash and the government itself knows its futility.

Regarding "non-disableable GPS" - please share details of such "non-disableable GPS" devices that other cab services provide. I assume that these cabs automagically stop moving should the driver disable the GPS?

Waiting for more details on cab services that provide such devices.

"His address and background (were) unverified. He was not having (the mandatory) security badge which is given after police verification," Verma said in a separate text message.

If Uber claimed they vetted the driver, but didn't (going by the above), isn't that an issue?

BTW, journalists are reporting that the driver did indeed get a clean certificate by the local police station in May this year. Link: https://twitter.com/KarnHT/status/541875208844353536/photo/1

Not sure who sought this verification - but the point I wish to make again is that a clean chit by the police in India is bunkum.

Even if any company going forward claims that they are doing "police verification", please realize for your own safety's sake that this is tantamount to nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com