Live data from Hacker News

Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver

themarkup.org

61–63 of 63 posts

Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver

#61

NDAs should simply be illegal.

Feel like this is an example of them working exactly they way they should. I could take the 1000 and not say anything or not take the 1000 and say anything I want.

No, it should be take the money or we go to court, not you never get to tell anyone what happened. They are literally buying silence(innocence).

It's 100% bullshit and the fact that it being abused is now the status quo shows it needs to be done away with.

Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver

#62
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about legal responsibility, but this happened because the driver was working for Uber. Uber knew who the carjacker was before it happened, and they directed the driver to the carjacking. This wouldn't have happened without Uber's involvement, and Uber is uniquely situated to be able to prevent this type of carjacking. If they're not responsible for the costs of their safety decisions, they should be.

Uber works with anyone who downloads the app and makes the account right? If they knew someone was a carjacker and didn't stop them I could see what you're saying, otherwise ... that's pretty distant a connection IMO.

They have more of an opportunity to prevent carjackings than the drivers do. For example, they could require enough information to create an account that if you stole a car using your account you'd be immediately identified and reported to the police by name.

The downside of this is that it decreases Uber's revenue. If Uber realizes the benefits of low security in their app, but not the costs, they have to incentive to take these or any other precautions. Making Uber responsible for the negative externalities of its service means that they have to take them into account when determining how to maximize profit.

Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the same sense that Apple is not at fault for allowing its hardware to connect the assailant and victim. Except that Uber claims that the value-add its "marketplace" provides is vetting riders and drivers and providing safety. Doesn't mean they could predict this (though there's several instances of people being reported for other aggressive/harassing behaviors and -not- being kicked off), but when you're slurpi…

> Except that Uber claims that the value-add its "marketplace" provides is vetting riders and drivers and providing safety. Uber doesn't vet riders, and I'm quite sure their marketing material wouldn't claim that they do. I would imagine they do take some large share of the responsibility for vetting drivers.

Responding to ratings on riders and kicking riders off the platform might not be fingerprinting and background checking riders, but it still is gatekeeping their access to the system.
Post reply on HN