61–70 of 206 posts
They spent a reported $8 million in very confusing ads. They sent text messages and push notifications to customers. All of this felt very disingenuous and deceptive. I will be sad to see them go but they are their own worst enemy right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An instant nationwide fingerprint background check would have a big market opportunity. Not sure why that hasn't been created yet (to my knowledge). Checkr is just a standard background check, of which Uber/Lyft already do similar checks.
Because where such checks are required, they are usually required to be done at a state-certified location of the state of the jurisdiction imposing the requirement, with checks against specific state and federal databases.
I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It…
As an Austin resident I think the real lesson to learn is how poor of a job Uber did of gaining supporters. I went from being a vocal supporter to an almost hostile opponent based on their behavior. They spent a reported $8 million in very confusing ads. They sent text messages and push notifications to customers. All of this felt very disingenuous and deceptive. I will be sad to see them go but they are their own wo…
But it could just be incompetence.
Lyft could try to take market share by complying. They can even use it to differentiate themselves. "The Safer Ride-Share Company!", "We Know Who are Drivers Are", etc.
Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper? Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business? Edit: Ah yes, https://checkr.com/
> Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper? The logistics and costs are both high. Honestly I'm all for background checks but fingerprinting is completely unrealistic. There are a lot of on-demand services nowadays some of which drive you places, others go into your home. I can't imagine Uber and Lyft will be the only ones required to do fingerprinting eventually. Someone…
In California, criminal records are stored at the state level in a biometric database, based on fingerprints. If you wanted to get your state-level criminal record, you'd have to get your fingers scanned at by a "LiveScan" operator. LiveScan devices are electronic fingerprint scanners (and associated software) that go through a certification process before they can be used to submit valid fingerprints to the state DOJ. The devices and software must meet standards set by the FBI and the DOJ. LiveScan software must be go to the DOJ through regulated data exchanges--a very limited number of privately run services that electronically relay the fingerprint data to the DOJ (not sure, but I think it's either SFTP or an XML-based API over a VPN). Anyone who wants to hook up LiveScan devices must get registered as an approved vendor, and anyone who wants take fingerprints with those devices must go through a fingerprint certification process.
In short, fingerprint background check requests in CA go through a set of regulated private service vendors. If you pull your own state criminal record in CA, you're going to pay $15-50 to the LiveScan vendor + $25 to the DOJ for the lookup fee, and then you'll wait ~1 week to get a paper copy of your record in the mail.
Maybe some entrepreneur could create an umbrella company, become an approved vendor and data exchange, and then sell small affordable FBI-approved fingerprint scanners that can plug into mobile phones, and sign up people to be certified fingerprint rollers, and then let contractors collect fingerprints anywhere and get paid for it, as well as sell better devices to law enforcement agencies.
I'm not sure how big the market is, but right now there are ~1 million+ people in CA eligible to reduce their old low-level felonies to misdemeanors under Prop 47 until November 2017, and getting these fingerprint background checks is often necessary to that process (and is one of the biggest barriers).
1 out of 4 adults in the US has a criminal record. And pulling these state-level records is routine for getting professional licenses, certain government jobs, and jobs involving vulnerable populations.
How are these fingerprint records different from private background checks?
Most private background check companies pull data from a variety of sources, such as county-level court records, DMV records, and FBI. By law, these companies are not allowed to share certain types of information (like certain types of convictions over 7 years old, etc.) Keep in mind that false names and aliases are common, and county clerks can't pull records based on fingerprints.
The state biometric record is built from county-level records submitted by law enforcement and courts. It includes every arrest, prosecution, hearing, sentencing, and all the registries (for sex offenses or controlled substances). It includes both "strong links" (biometric matches, regardless of given name) and "weak links" (non-biometric matches based on multiple identity matches, such as given name, DOB, ssn). Fingerprints for biometric matching are typically taken by law enforcement and corrections departments during booking. Non-biometric records are often submitted by courts, for tracking convictions and sentencing.
The state record is only allowed to be accessed by particular types of "authorized agencies" and only for particular purposes, and they are only allowed to see certain kinds of records. Telling Uber & Lyft to put their drivers through fingerprint background checks might be analogous to saying that the drivers will be responsible for serving people who may be easily victimized and therefore (like other professional licensing requirements) Uber/Lyft's contractors should go through an authorized licensing agency and do a biometric lookup of any contact they may have had with law enforcement.
I imagine that forcing all the drivers to go through the LiveScan service + wait time would add a huge cost and time burden for signing up new drivers that is currently difficult or impossible to automate (unlike checkr, which has an API).
FWIW here are some links for more info: - Checkr's county court fees listing: https://checkr.com/pricing/additional-pricing-information/ - CA DOJ Request for LiveScan service: http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/forms/BCII_8016.pdf - NIST Fingerprint testing standards http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/fingerprint/NIST%20Finge... - FBI Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis/efts_70.pdf - DCJS NY RFP for LiveScan services (yay procurement! /s) http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/rfp/livescan/livescanrfp_f... - CA DOJ Become a LiveScan Operator http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators
Less people voted for Prop-1 than signed the petition to create it (39k vs 65k). Uber and Lyft spent over $8m and lost. Sources: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/austin-group-gathers... , http://kxan.com/election-results/ , http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/ube...
Was the petition online?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state uses regulation for health and safety purposes all the time. Valid or not, the state, affirmed by democratic vote, wants fingerprinting as an additional assurance of driver fitness. Let me turn this around: what in particular about driving passengers for profit means they should be exempt from regulation? Or do you simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle?
I wasn't making an argument about whether or not the government has the authority to do this. Of course they do, and of course the people have the right to vote for it, and the companies are bound by it. I was arguing that the regulation itself is inadvisable, and I don't think the position is particularly absolutist. The government should step in to regulate areas that pose a significant risk to the public, but that…