Uber should be suspended in California and fined $7.3M, judge says | Hacker News Reader

Uber should be suspended in California and fined $7.3M, judge says

latimes.com

65 pointsdanso146 comments

Uber isn't complying with a law that they supported.

"California has always been on the cutting edge. The CPUC agreement further demonstrates how the Golden State welcomes and supports not only technological advancement, but a better future for drivers, riders, and our cities."

http://newsroom.uber.com/la/2013/01/california-clears-uber-t...

I think Uber is a great company and I love the product.

However, I can't remember a startup that received billions in funding and having such disregard for local laws around the globe. I just don't get it. They literally don't comply with any law in any country and give zero shits about the consequences.

Well as long as you can cash out before the law catches up it is not a bad strategy.

This is not unique to Uber. It's a trend.

Step 1: Find a regulated industry (taxi, hotel, liquor, etc.)

Step 2: Create an app and label yourself as being part of the "sharing economy" that is disrupting the industry

Step 3: Completely ignore all regulation

Step 4: Profit — largely because you don't have to pay for licensing, insurance, etc. while everyone else in the industry you are trying to disrupt does

That's not true. Uber is paying for insurance for all drivers while in a ride. Furthermore, why is licensing needed? You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam.

I see companies like Uber disrupting the industry by removing inefficiency. Licensing, medallions, appeasing public bureaucrats, etc are inefficiencies. That's not to say that regulation is inherently bad, but we need to let new industries grow and see its challenges first -- instead of applying outdated concepts (like medallions, licensing) to new technology.

For example: USPS, by law, has a monopoly on mail delivery. Just imagine if USPS banned all e-mail providers and forced you to use your @usps.com inbox. Is this a net benefit? Is the taxi industry banning all ridesharing apps and forcing you to use taxis a net benefit?

You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam.

Bernie Madoff's investors would disagree.

In Madoff's case, he passed SEC audits, licensing requirements, etc with flying colours.

Licensing primarily works by raising the barrier to entry, discouraging 'bad actors' from signing up because society-wise, 'bad actors' are more distributed among poorer demographics and are unable to afford licensing.

Not overly so. He did in some cases. In others, the SEC had plenty of warnings, concerns, but chose not to act on them (which is a different issue entirely - 'why not?').

Lack of resources.

Nearly everybody thought Madoff had a serious insider trading scam going on, but everybody wanted to get in on it so they ignored the red flags.

They pay for some additional insurance. They don't require drivers to carry commercial insurance. They don't require drivers to get passenger carrier permits. They don't really have to follow or comply with any of the other regulations imposed by the CPUC or things that plague the taxi and limo industry.

All of these things have costs. Uber didn't remove the inefficiencies from the system, they just ignored the laws that cause them. I too can remove "inefficiencies" from my bottom line by not paying my taxes, right?

I love Uber. I love that's it's on demand. I love that it's cheaper. But if you recall the time before UberX—when their was only black car service and all drivers had to have Passenger Carrier Permits, commercial insurance, and comply with CPUC rules and regulations—it WASN'T cheaper. The minimum was $15 a ride. SF to Sausalito was $80.

Uber started with a great premium service that was compliant with the law and fixed a real problem. Uber expanded by saying, "We need to grow. Fast. The law no longer applies to us."

Uber doesn't require drivers to carry commercial insurance, because they already provide commercial insurance.

    Uber maintains commercial automobile insurance that covers U.S. partner drivers that operate under the “Ridesharing” or “Transportation Network Company” (“TNC”) model through Uber’s TNC subsidiaries, Rasier LLC and its affiliates.(1)

http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/01/certificates-of-insurance-u...

Most of us sees a purpose in paying tax. But, say example, you made an app that files your taxes just like an agent. You could call it TurboTax and sell it, and save $100s of dollars for tax filers. You provide insurance so that if your app does something wrong, you will reimburse people who get penalised.

Yeah, they provide this now, after getting slapped. And even still it has gaps.

The point is, the law has always been: if you drive commercially, you need commercial insurance. This is what keeps most people from driving commercially.

I think it's disingenuous (of Uber, not you) to tout this and -not- note that it's third-party and UI/UM only.

>They don't require drivers to get passenger carrier permits. They don't really have to follow or comply with any of the other regulations imposed by the CPUC or things that plague the taxi and limo industry.

Uber enforces the paperwork requirements of each (product type, geofence) permutation. Why would it require something like a Passenger Carrier Permit, if local law does not require it?

If you RTFA, you'll notice that the issue is failure to hand over trip data and GPS logs. Regualators allegedly want them to make sure disabled people and people with service animals are not discriminated against, but I'd be stunned if that's all the data was used for once it fell into government hands.

Licensing holds people to standards. Uber might not be a scam, but what if I want to create Cole's Driver Service? With that logic what stops me and a million other scammers from creating shady unregulated taxi services?

You can create a service, that doesn't mean anyone will use it. And you don't need a license to get arrested and convicted if you do something illegal.

Of course, that requires you to commit a crime first, but it's not like the licenses prevent you from doing so.

And even then, The overwhelming majority of cabbies who killed and maimed passengers and pedestrians in the past five years are back behind the wheel. Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc...

"You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam."

Licensing isn't just 'we are not a scam' any more than a "site seal" on a website means anything.

Plenty of companies with valuations in the 8 and 9 digit range have a history of doing dubious things up to and including things that have been known to cost lives.

Licensing doesn't prevent that. But does help with some of the things needed to minimize. Uber just "opted" out of "inefficient regulation".

User's insurance isn't particularly great.

For one, they make no mention of requiring commercial vehicle insurance (https://www.uber.com/driver-jobs) and say that drivers only need personal vehicle insurance.

They have contingent liability injury insurance with a total available of $100K.

They talk of having commercial insurance during trips, but it is only third party liability and UI/UM. If you're a passenger in an Uber accident and insurers decline to cover when they become aware the vehicle was driven commercially, you're out of luck.

"You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam."

How much was Bernie Madoff's fund worth when he was arrested?

Are we sure uber has achieved step 4? I would think it is more like:

Step 4: Find a sucker to dump the whole company on before the law catches up and walk off into the sunset.

I agree that Uber has ignored some regulation that has a legitimate public-interest justification [1]. But what complicates the issue is regulation has also failed to keep up with technology: for example, it doesn't make much sense to mandate taxi meters when GPS do it better, or to have a phone system for complaints when an app has much more data and a better complaint response time and satisfaction.

So Uber has provided significant positive sum gains on top of whatever negative externalities they've thrown off, which makes it much harder to claim that this is a case of merely avoiding regulations others have to follow. Taxi companies could have done all of positive-sum things Uber did [2], but didn't.

So I don't think that narrative fits the situation, or at least, can't account for than 1/3 of Uber's appeal.

[1] specifically, some insurable events that are generally accepted to be the company's responsibility to cover and not the driver's.

[2] easy-to-use app, removing the tipping dance, clean cars, mutual rating, quick action on complaints, reliable follow-up when a ride is requested, pooling rides, cashless transactions, etc

Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber.

There is definitely a need for a lot of them, like mandatory safety inspections, vetting of drivers, etc. However, certain aspects of how they're implemented, like the medallion system, are obsolete and need to go away.

Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems

This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous.

Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety

Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public.

The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.

I am assuming those gypsy cabs where not connected to a real time database where thousands of users are reviewing the drivers actions where 1 bad review can cost the drivers their ability to book new riders

You that is the difference, technology it replacing government, and that is a good thing.

You do not need the government to know the uber driver is good or not, other uber users will tell you that

Because uber's assurances that a driver that's picking you up is the driver who was interviewed are laughable [1]. It would be trivial for uber to create, and mandate their drivers display, information that had their photo, driver id, etc. Technology would be replacing government if uber provided the same assurances I can get right now. They don't.

[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...

The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public.

Nope, the reason it was created was because the taxi drivers where annoyed with the increase of competition during the Great Depression and started striking and destroying property until they got a monopoly over the business.

From the nyc.gov site: Widespread poverty prompted many New Yorkers to opt for less-expensive forms of transportation, decreasing the demand for taxis. This put many companies out of business and caused many cabdrivers to lose their jobs. The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business. The situation in the taxi industry was dire; frustrated cabdrivers turned their anger into violent protest and the demands for industry regulation increased.

Another source: Striking taxi drivers was nothing new–the first strike took place in 1908, a year after the first taxi company was founded. But this strike had a hostile energy to it, as strikers went hunting for scabs to punish. As one driver put it, “the bastids that was scabbin’, we pulled the doors off their cabs.” Independent cab owners, who had nothing to gain by striking, had their windows smashed by blocks of ice and passengers thrown from their cabs. Police who tried restore order had their tires slashed and marbles thrown under their horses. By February 5, angry crowds of driving were brawling in the street with the police and torching independent cab cars.

http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-th...

>Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public

So do Uber rides have terrible drivers, cars in bad shape, no consistent metering, or ride negotiation?

If not, then it seems like the regulation intended to accomplish the above is either obsolete or irrelevant to this case.

But Uber is solved “gypsy cabs” problem. And much effectively than medallions did.

If that's how you feel, vote.

Until enough people agree with you and get the law changed, it's the law. You don't get to blatantly disregard it just because you disagree with it.

At the very least don't act surprised when disregarding the law results in punishment. It's kind of like, "Duh, what did you expect?"

First past the post voting schemes are less than useless, wasting your time voting in American elections is not a way to effect change. If you believe your vote matters I have a shit ton of math I can throw at you to show you how it does not

IMO, it's a good thing that no individual's vote "matters" in this kind of stuff. If it did, voting would be pointless and everybody would just go around doing whatever they wanted.

As it stands, society has decided that we don't want people and companies doing whatever they want, and we want them to follow certain rules. We tried the laissez-faire system and in almost every case the end result was giant corporations screwing people over in some way.

Your vote has the statistical significance it has been apportioned by your continued choice of living locale. Don't like that level of significance ... Move or convince others to agree with you.

"Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems"

Not really, considering none of them have worked very well so far.

"This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous."

This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want because profit is even more dangerous.

"Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety"

Because your anecdote trumps reality?

Or is there?

These regulations pre-dated the internet. They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available. If I wanted to know how "Yellow Taxi Co" vetted its drivers in 1980, I would have needed to write letters and wait weeks for a response. That's not practical when I desperately need to get somewhere stat.

But now, I can open up my phone and find out how exactly Uber vets drivers in a minute. If I don't like that, I can use Lyft. Or SideCar. Or, call a cab. I see these regulations like forcing drills to come with a OCR "Don't it yourself" failsafe. I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile. Let me decide, and cut the red tape.

Do you know how the highway construction is vetted, how your cell phone batteries are vetted, how the gasoline additives are vetted, how the driver's licensing scheme in California is vetted, how vehicle import regulations are vetted, how traffic signals are vetted, etc?

Any of these could cause non-negligible personal risk, none of it your fault. For extra fun, imagine changing jurisdictions frequently and doing all that research over again.

Uber's economic model is maybe not my business, but my safety using them sure as hell is.

I don't want to second-guess whether drinking water is safe, food, etc. Nor do I want to have to Google whether it's safe merely to hail a cab-like service.

It's absurd to expect everyone to take 100% responsibility for all external factors beyond their control. At least some common, important factors need to be regulated simply to spare redundant burden on the populace.

your absolute faith in government to protect you is astounding

I don't have the resources to do everything myself. Nor do you.

A little altruism is required for societies to function. (Nor did I say complete altruism is required)

And your absolute faith in your ability to evaluate all risks is stupifying.

But as Uber itself shows, the fact that a licensing system exists doesn't mean that all services are compliant. So you already can't assume everything is safe - you're just self-deceiving yourself into a sense of false security.

Yeah, obviously nobody can ever fully drop their defenses, nor totally disclaim personal liability.

In all the examples above, there's still room/need to stop aberrant behavior, eg, "why is this water so cloudy?! maybe I shouldn't drink it!"

As dragonwriter said:

"You realize the law at issue is a law Uber supported which legalized ridesharing services in California?"

> I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile.

How does that work if you are drunk, otherwise incapacitated or raped ?

Pretty sure you are going to begging at that point for more regulation. You can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Some regulations generally make the situation safer for everyone.

You mean raped and robbed, like the Brooklyn woman who entered a licensed NYC cab in February? Or raped and kidnapped, like the victim of licensed NYC cab driver Gurmeet Singh? Or maybe sexually assaulted while sleeping, like the passenger of licensed Chicago taxi driver Tajamul Syed?

No one said that regulations are going to make everyone perfectly safe all the time.

However, you cannot convince me that people will somehow be safer with no regulations.

In 1980, I'd be able to tell how Yellow Cab vetted their drivers by the fact that their ad in the phone book had a PUC license number. I could then call the PUC and ask what requirements there are for a taxi cab. With the driver, I'd see a card prominently placed in the vehicle, which gave the driver's taxi license number, a photograph, and when the license expires. These are the bits of vetting that uber doesn't do, and turns a blind eye when people discuss how they work around uber's requirements for vetting [1]. The problem with uber is they've made it entirely too easy to game the system, because they'd much rather have drivers than safety.

[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...

"These regulations pre-dated the internet. "

That means absolutely nothing. People were capable of making decisions before the internet, you know.

"They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available. If I wanted to know how "Yellow Taxi Co" vetted its drivers in 1980, I would have needed to write letters and wait weeks for a response. That's not practical when I desperately need to get somewhere stat."

And even with the internet, verifying all of that, and making sure that it's accurate, up to date, and not just astroturfing isn't practical either.

> I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile.

Most adults are terrible at assessing risk. Why are you different? What do you do to protect yourself from the cognitive biases that everyone has?

> These regulations pre-dated the internet. They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available.

That's cool, any tips on how I can easily pull driver's arrest record and history of traffic violations?

I would also like some data on his last inspections to ensure that he's doing proper maintenance to his vehicle, and I'm not going to ride a beater who needs some break fluid and whose tires skid just a little in rainy weather.

> Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber.

You realize the law at issue is a law Uber supported which legalized ridesharing services in California?

Somehow it doesn't seem quite like "civil disobedience" when it's a multinational company breaking the law. As an example, if a more established company just started breaking laws that were inconvenient to their margins (especially safety sensitive ones) I really doubt it would be so easy to support.

Most companies do exactly that, everyday. If the penalty is less than the cost to follow the law most companies will not follow it.

Which is why I'm in favour of penalties being set by a judge and being significantly burdensome enough most of the time, that they will think twice before trying. Company A has 10 million in the bank, fine is 5 million, company B has 100 billion in the bank, the fine is 75 billion.

Companies don't get to pick and choose which laws they deem worthy of following. If you want the laws changed support an advocacy group. To let them off for blatantly ignoring legislation in a democratic society is setting a dangerous precedent.

Of course they do - these business are just called “too big to fail” and tend to be involved in shuffling money around.

You could apply the same logic to gay legalization, feminism & female emancipation, weed legalization, India's independence lead by ghandi, the civil rights movement and other forms of civil disobedience leading to legal changes, cultural shifts and even national holidays.

In these examples you have illegal organizations, for profit organizations, non profit organizations and individuals demanding the changes.

No, you absolutely cannot.

It's very easy, civil disobedience is one of the fastest ways to change laws. Especially if you have a large base of support, which uber has. Uber uses civil disobedience very well to achieve its goals and move into new territories. Just because we aren't talking about freedom or human rights doesn't mean that this isn't the same exact behavior.

I think of civil disobedience as a way toward justice where an obvious and protracted injustice has existed.

While I think there are good things about Uber, like breaking the Taxi co monopolies and lowering the barrier to entry for anyone to become a taxi driver, it would be a stretch, a big stretch to comparing how civil disobedience can help to bring change where civil injustice exists and allowing a company to co-opt this mechanism to enable it to enter markets more easily.

I think you can apply the same logic to gay legalization and feminism, yes. The logic is stretched too far if you try to apply it to Gandhi or the Civil Rights Movement. Those are completely different situations. A company didn't choose which laws to disobey to enable those movements.

If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with it they go to prison.

But when a $40 billion tech startup does it, it's cool.

Got it.

On what basis are you assuming that the_ancient wouldn't also support a regular person who was also breaking a law that the_ancient believes shouldn't exist?

Yes, organizations have more power and importance than individuals. This has been true everywhere throughout most of human history.

Which is why allowing them to undertake acts of civil disobedience is just letting in the Visigoths.

If money and power is allowed to buy a company greater ability to ignore the law than an individual human citizen... We all may as well call it a day, write the entire system off and start thinking about how the next one should work. Unless I see a counter example of say Google or Apple ignoring a stupid encryption must have back doors type law then we have zero examples of corporations ignoring the law for good... Vs hundreds of examples of them ignoring the law for evil, and a handful of examples where the good vs evil question is uncertain but should still be considered bad because they are breaking the law.

> If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with it they go to prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

You're ignoring the history that caused those laws to be on the books in the first place. We had more or less unregulated capitalism up through the industrial revolution, and companies screwed it up. They were disregarding safety, making children work 14 hour days, spreading food borne diseases, adding cocaine to their products, etc.

Relatively few laws are on the books just to f* people over. The vast majority of them were enacted because they addressed real issues.

The history was cab drivers striking and destroying other people's property over the increased competition during the Great Depression.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9894899

Disgraceful attitude. Uber and its supporters should wake up and realise that they alone do not get to usurp the laws made by democratically elected representatives. This kind of imperialist behaviour is antiquated, disrespectful and selfish. And is even more unacceptable from a company with a long history of childish, petulant behaviour hell bent on disrupting as much as they can.

Whilst I agree that here in Australia our taxi laws need to be improved I am not happy for Uber to just ignore important safety conditions that people have fought for e.g. security cameras.

ahh democracy.... mob rule....

Democracy is a terrible way to organize society.

Well get back to me when you have figured this utopian vision out.

In the meantime I will trust my local members and health/safety experts in the public sector over one US company trying to make billions as quickly as possible.

Nice False dilemma... How about you trust neither....

I do not trust uber, and I damn sure do not trust the government.

As far as a utopia, that is the dream of a statist. Statists believe if they elect just the right people, and pass just the right laws everyone will be safe, happy and life will finally be bliss for all....

Nonarchic (Anti-Statism) libertarians like myself do not believe in a utopia, we believe in a rational foundation of ethics we accept that bad things will happen to good people. We believe that over the long term allowing individuals to be free provides the best method for most people to be able to live happy and fulfilled lives as they desire.

Fine, trust them. Just don't force everyone else to do the same.

You say imperialist like it's a bad thing.

Except Uber wants those laws on the books, because they consider disregarding the law a competitive advantage. Otherwise they'd be lobbying for the laws to be changed. Instead, they're just flaunting the law everywhere, and crying when they get called out on it.

I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control?

For me personally, Uber's expansion has convinced me the regulation around ridesharing does not need to go beyond wha t Uber already does. I can give zero shits that some public bureaucratic can't flex its authority.

>I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control?

If a country is a free, sovereign country, and not a dictatorship, then companies should respects its laws. Period.

Why?

Why should a company respect the laws?

Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both.

Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying.

Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society.

Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say.

Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)

>Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society

Has it been tried and found lacking?

Tried in the sense of "We, the government, are going to remove all laws and even ourselves, and let society run itself"? No.

Tried in the sense of the government collapsed? Yes. See Somalia for the most recent example, but there are others. And when it has happened, yes, it has been found lacking.

Well the USA is not a free nation, in fact the various governments of United States are oppressive, so while not a "dictatorship" it is totalitarian so I guess I do not need to respect the laws...

And before you start naming other nations, no the US is not the "most" oppressive in the world, but just because they are less oppressive than say north Korea, that does not change the fact that US citizens do not enjoy the level of freedom they should in order for me to call it a free nation.

If by your standards the US is "not a free nation", "oppressive", and "totalitarian", then I'd like to see what nations you describe as "free", "not oppressive", and "not totalitarian". Even more, I'd like you to define how you draw the line between them.

And if every nation is defined by you as totalitarian, then I think the problem is your definition.

The US is not perfect. It is less free than I would like. But there's a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. If you've ever lived under a totalitarian regime, you'd know the difference, and you'd know which side of the line the US is on.

You believe a nation that locks millions of non-violent persons in a cage for possessing unapproved plant material, a nation that has soo many laws and regulations that many studies believe that every citizen commits between 1 and 3 crimes every single day. A nation that spy's on every citizen, a nation that has declared a zone 100 mile from every boarder to be a "constitution free zone". A nation where the police forces can execute the homeless, and blow up bombs in the face of infants with no criminal charges being filed against the officers.. A nation that can simply take any property they want from you at any time with no requirement they prove you committed a crime....

You believe a nation like that can be called "free"

At it core the concept of Statism is oppressive. No nation state can be truly free, democracy at its core is the majority oppressing the minority, and many times in reality the minority oppressing the majority.

> No nation state can be truly free

You define that no nation state can be truly free, therefore the US is not truly free. Perfectly logical, but there is more going on in terms of freedom than is dreamt of in your philosophy. There is a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. You define it to not exist. The problem is your definition.

(Note well: This does not mean that the US is perfect, is as free as it should be, or is the best that there currently is.)

You are either free or you are not.

There is not "more free" or "less free"

Freedom is a binary state

Edit

to be more clear what you are talking about is more accurately stated is "more oppressed" and "less oppressed".

Oppression can have varying degrees, freedom can not.

Enjoy considering yourself a slave, then. But from where I sit, you're mostly a slave to a view of the world that is completely lacking in perspective. I keep trying to get you to look outside it. You keep refusing to do so.

What perspective am I lacking. Please Enlighten me.

I tried, in my previous two posts on this thread.

At this point, I think we're in an infinite loop. AnimalMuppet out...

>Freedom is a binary state

No, it's a continium. Should you be free to have other people as slaves, hurt your children, kill people, burn a forest etc?

If not, then you already drew some limits to freedom.

Yet, I'd venture that a person who "lacks the freedom" to own slaves is still perfectly free.

Never in the history of manking was the concept of freedom understood as this "total binary freedom" you mention. Even tribesmen and such had and respected limits while still considering themselves free folk.

"Well the USA is not a free nation"

Nope. Not true.

Like Paris's law banning women from wearing pants?

Who decides which laws companies need to respect?

Hey, I have an idea, how about voters.

Only Switzerland somehow approximates a system where the voters decided that.

In any case, the State still has the decision - that's exactly what judges like this one are for. One court order and Uber can be shut down the next day.

"We have this law that was voted in 40 years ago. I don't really think it applies anymore as we have better methods available to use through technological advances, but casting a vote to remove the law is an expensive, timely process. We should keep following this law."

Plenty of laws go unenforced because they no longer make sense to enforce. Enforcing the letter-of-the-law contrary to popular position is also one way to prohibit progress.

For example, you aren't allowed to remain at a bar in Alaska if you're drunk. I don't drink, but I think enforcing that kind of defeats the purpose of a bar? [0]

[0] http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http:/...

Moreover, enforcing that law is likely to increase drunk driving...

From my experience, people will shop on the company's website, but will complain how they blatantly ignore local laws on news sites and forums, a la Uber, Airbnb, Tesla.

Is this your gut/bias speaking, or have you done legwork on the rate of various incidences in Uber rides vs taxi rides, and based upon that seen that the regulation is unnecessary?

The Taxi groups have done a compilation of Uber related incidents[1]; then only got around a dozen for 2015 in the whole world, and that's with padding the numbers by including repeated news.

[1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

"I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful."

I think it would have been important for UBER to ask this, and then lobby to change the law.

I absolutely do not think that is relevant when talking about a company that has decided to disregard the law, simply because it's one you happen to not like.

    I think Uber is a great company
    and I love the product.

I love the product too, but I also think they're the exact opposite of a great company. Or perhaps we have different definitions of the word "great." How are you using it?

"Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average"

They're not saying they're a good company, they're saying they're a great company.

Do you happen to know that that is the particular definition mrkmcknz means? It's not clear to me, and it looks like you've just chosen a common dictionary definition and used that to indicate they aren't calling it a good company, while other dictionary definitions for great explicitly mean things equivalent to "very good".

It's the second-most-common interpretation where "very good" doesn't seem to be the intended meaning. Commonly used in phrases like "Napoleon was a great man." Basically means "historically important."

You don't get it? The answer is simple: money. Money makes the world go 'round.

Uber is legal in some places.

Minneapolis http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-joins-other-cities-re...

> They literally don't comply with any law in any country

they literally break every law in every country?

Sure, why not. More seriously, responding to hyperbole with pedantry isn't productive. I'm pretty sure that quote is intended to convey their general disregard for the law, rather than a concerted attempt to break every law they can.

Well that's obvious but literally breaking every law in every country would be literally impossible.

It's like this guy at work who always says "verbage". It just grinds certain peoples gears when people use words incorectly and shamelessly or ignorantly.

I could care less, irregardless... Oy vey!

Because they know it will take time for the law to catch up with them. In the meantime they profit and get the public to demand their services. There are two ways to get what you want, Ask for permission or ask for forgiveness.

Why are they entitled to profit?

I'm not saying they are, I'm just telling you that's what they are doing.

How can people love the product? I mean it's nice, but it's just temporary relief from crappy taxi service, which will change to be better if they don't plan to just roll over and die.

If not the drivers' crutch of GPS maps, I also have to hear stories from my GF about Uber bros in wayferers trying to flirt with her. So yeah, can't say I "love" the product.

I question the value of CPUC wanting detailed historical operational data. It seems like an attempt by an outdated regulatory organization to shoehorn itself by flexing its authority, creating nothing but more bureaucratic inefficiency.

What purpose does it serve? How will it make California more safe? How are the legal costs, the administrative costs, and the overhead costs justified? I think these questions should be asked more often, instead of blindly respecting that authority is good, and regulation is a net positive.

This issue is not that CPUC wants this data, it's that state law requires operators to provide the data to CPUC. The article says:

"Uber's parent company has refused to provide data on operational data that is required under the 2013 law that legalized ride-hailing firms, the California Public Utilities Commission judge said in a decision issued Wednesday afternoon."

That is a separate issue. While an unjust law is still law, it does not mean I will look down on a service that ignores unjust laws.

This reminds me of Yishan Wong's comment about the law being "lazily evaluated" [1]. Whatever the legal merit of the ruling, the plain political reality is that Uber has establish an immense base of satisfied users and will therefore receive significant pushback on this. I personally can't imagine Uber shutting down in CA at this point: so many people are past the the "can't imagine how I did it before..." threshold.

While Uber's strategy was in a gray (if not black) area at the time of inception, by the time the law gets around to "evaluating" whether to act against Uber, the sands have shifted, vindicating Wong's point.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-regula...

The people of California can surely now breathe a sigh of relief that the government was able to protect them from this predatory company and the services it offered.

The rule of law is something that every US business relies on. Further, I doubt that Uber relies on vigilante justice to settle their disputes -- they (just like everyone else) rely on the law and the courts to get what's legally entitled to them.

Legitimate businesses rely mostly on the enforcement of contracts and protection of property.

Immoral businesses rely on government force to prevent other citizens freely engaging in otherwise harmless transactions for mutual benefit.

Considering the massive backlash Uber has received around the world, i'm quite impressed how they can keep the show going, and investors keep funding them.

Doesn't this seem like a lost cause for VC's?

Edit:

I get that the service they provide is hugely beneficial to the customers, but if that is only possible from breaking the law, then it's doomed to fail.

E.g. If an airline company provided extremely cheap flights, by having people who just received a license to fly be the captain, then you are asking for trouble, legal and illegal.

Truth be told, if Uber pivoted to instead of cutting out the taxi companies, instead delivered the app as a service for the taxi companies, then they could probably optimize their respective companies to be able to provide taxi services cheaper and with better service.

Everywhere I've been people/customers love Uber. I live in Toronto and I think it's safe to say the people much prefer Uber over taxis.

The only significant entities who dislike Uber seem to be taxi companies and governments.

.. and the victims of accidents who find that the drivers are not properly insured, and the drivers who find that their insurance company drops them and they are liable .. and people who think that you should be able to get a fucking cab in the rain for less than $400. ;)

I can't speak to the insurance side, but I know that in Boston, the sort of times when a surge goes over 2x are the same sort of times that it's very difficult to hail a cab, let alone expect dispatch to send one if you call. If the weather is bad enough to be at a 2.5x surge, I'd never expect to be able to get a hackney cab here. Other cities may not have this problem.

VC's aren't trying to make public opinion, and uber makes money.

Frankly, it probably wouldn't hurt their business as much as their ego to stop operating in CA forever, even, since they launched here years ago and duplicated the model around the world.

They would probably move their offices to NYC eventually.

Anyway, we'll see if this is anything more than posturing.

Uber doesn't make money.

They sure as hell do, they just aren't giving any back to their investors, yet, because money is pouring into their laps and they're happy to spend it.

There's a difference between not being profitable and not making money, and when you're displacing an entire existing industry, you can afford to lose money while you're doing it.

That's one of the hidden stories with Uber, of course, that taxi drivers give up their taxis and move to uber and that door kind of closes behind them, and the taxi companies lose share and it'll all shake out in the end is their hope.

I think they're insane, but it's silly to pretend that VCs care about anything but the valuation, IMO.

"Buying $20 bills for $21" does not constitute making money, no matter how many $20 bills you end up with.

So, to be clear, I think our disagreement is fairly narrow. You suggest that the VCs care about the valuation. I agree! But:

1. Uber isn't making money. Its investors no doubt hope that it will make money at some point. But investors are not infallible, and it is entirely possible that Uber will never be profitable, or (more likely) will at some point but profitable, but not profitable enough to justify its lofty valuation.

2. That said, investors don't directly care about whether or not Uber makes money -- they care about its valuation. If Uber starts making money hand over fist, certainly that's one way for its valuation to increase, but there are others. Maybe it will go public and its current investors will cash out and then it will be revealed that robo cars kill Uber and it will crash and burn -- but still be a good investment for current investors. I don't think that's the most likely scenario, but it's possible.

Anyhow, the point is, it is not now "making money," and whether it will ever "make money" in very large scales is currently unknown.

Uber is not receiving 'massive backlash' from users. It's receiving backlash from authorities and regulators. Personally, the more authorities want to ban uber the more I want to use it.

Maybe it's not a win or lose situation. I wish Uber would just play by the rules and make their drivers real employees. They have so much money that sure, they won't make as MUCH profit, but it will probably still be a service worth using and will still help break the medallion monopoly. It won't happen until the governments force their hand, but hopefully it's just a matter of time.

Uber loses battles from time to time, but they are winning the war.

I'd hate to see losing.

Losing would be getting banned and staying banned. Many places have banned Uber in the past (SF, NYC, etc.) but they ended up getting unbanned. Portland is recent example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-06-23/this-is-ho...

Wait until the IRS deems Uber has illegally classified workers across the country as independent contractors and requires missed tax payments and penalties to be paid.

It should be noted, corporate officers are personally liable for those expenses if the corporation defaults or folds.

And notable politicians are talking about squashing the "gig" economy (e.g. Hillary Clinton).

If I was an investor I'd be a little worried. The US government has made clear in the past that it frowns on using contractors over full time employees, if past law suits against enterprises that use them are any indication.

No. It's likely that companies like Uber will cause a shift in the legal treatment of employees vs contractors. I hope that the difference will be eliminated. It's such a fine line already, very difficult to know whether someone is a contractor or an employee. Technology and market forces are eliminating the difference, the law needs to catch up. Universal health care and disability insurance would eliminate much of the difference between those labels.

Throw in better retirement options than 401k's, and a few other things, and I think that might be possible.

Uber receives massive backlash from taxi drivers, local governments receiving political funds from taxi companies and journalists with agendas. The average consumer loves Uber

The law is created by people. If enough people support it, the laws will eventually become overturned.

I love uber and use it daily. I live in NYC where taxis have been getting worse and worse over the past few years.

I am very concerned about how much their "contractors" make though. Some of the drivers I speak to claim they can make 100k a year driving just Friday and Saturday nights... others say they aren't making much profit after insurance, TLC, and leasing costs.

Honestly, what would be nice to see, is the breakdown: who is making money, and how much, when one rides the taxicab, i.e. Uber vs Yellow Cab vs whatever-cab.

Also, whether the price is sustainable, or is it just price-dumping.

I want to give more money to the cabbie driver, and then less and less to the broker (Yellow Cab or Uber) (10% finders fee is what is common in other businesses), medallion owner (0% - provides no value), car owner (investor - 10% a year would be great investment), licensing board (fixed fee, say $300), insurance ($thousands per year for sure), and whoever else is trying to make money on this.

Details from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/uber-fined-7m-kee...

> The judge agreed with utility commission staff who said Uber has not filed all required reports, specifically about how often it provided disabled-accessible vehicles when requested, places where drivers tend to turn down ride requests, and the causes of accidents.

This ruling is a (proposed) penalty for failing to hand over private customer data including GPS logs of trips. HN would normally love to see a company stand up to such an order.

Although I dislike the term "disruptive", this is a great case of just that. Uber aggressively disrupted the taxi industry without regard to rules or regulations and is now seeing the side of the law that appreciates those.

I personally think uber is a great service. The company's aggressive growth strategies can be questioned but given the offended industry is one that hasn't changed in ages, is controlled by a small few, and has lots of issues on its own, I think über is fine.

Another byproduct of their aggressive growth is the amount of money they've raised, which they have been and will continue to put to use on lawyer fees ;)

The CPUC has kowtowed to incumbent providers for decades. The wrinkle in this case is that the "incumbents" are taxi companies rather than VZN and ATT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com