Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 218 posts

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#121

Post by aetherson »

eridius wrote: post #110
untog wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) Presumably so that the customer can contact the driver if they need to pass on instructions about a specific place to be picked up, etc.

Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you. Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the dur…

I work for Flywheel, an Uber competitor. We do not expose driver or passenger phone numbers to either party at all (the exact mechanism is a little different than what you propose, but the effect is the same). Driver can call passenger and passenger can call driver and neither will ever see the other person's actual number.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#122

Post by eridius »

colinbartlett wrote: post #40

I love the doublespeak in the statement: "Our local teams can be pretty determined when spreading the word about Uber and how our platform opens up new economic opportunities for drivers" "opens up new economic opportunities" is that what we are calling "sales" now?

"opens up new economic opportunities for drivers". It's not sales. It's part-time job openings. Their phrasing sounds about right.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#123

Post by at-fates-hands »

yapcguy wrote: post #71
67726e wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the incident occurred in New York state and they consulted someone about California state law? I'd guess most states have similar laws so it is a bit of a moot point.

I am not a lawyer but if anyone out there is... If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one? What if the e-mail trail reveals similar activity in multiple states directed by managers in San Francisco?

Not necessarily.

Charges can brought in multiple states at the same time, for the same crime which doesn't violate fifth amendment protection of double jeopardy. It's known as the dual sovereignty doctrine.

The FBI only gets involved in the most serious of cases such as organized crime, drugs, gangs, terrorism, cyber crime, etc.

What the FBI investigates: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate

Info on the dual sovereignty doctrine: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in...

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#124

Post by avalaunch »

eridius wrote: post #98
potatolicious wrote: post #11

Wow. This is low. The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics." No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that". I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.

It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#125

Post by eridius »

Gorbzel wrote: post #42

Lots of bantering about whether or not it's ethical / low. tl;dr: It probably is; Travis probably doesn't care. Honestly, since all that really matters to Uber is $$ and being forced to deal with the law (and even then only barely), Gett should just sue them. It's clearly illegal (putting aside differences between NY/CA law) and it proves the point in a way they'll be forced to notice.

Is it actually illegal? That seems to be very much a question, not a matter of fact. It's obvious Uber was not intentionally trying to disrupt Gett's business. They were trying to harvest driver phone #s (so they could later try to hire away the drivers; while ethically dubious, this part does not seem illegal). Furthermore, they paid cancellation fees to Gett for doing this. It does not seem clear-cut to me at all that you could label this as fraud, which I believe is the only way to claim this is illegal.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#126

Post by rahimnathwani »

eridius wrote: post #110
untog wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) Presumably so that the customer can contact the driver if they need to pass on instructions about a specific place to be picked up, etc.

Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you. Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the dur…

Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the duration of the trip.

You wouldn't even need a bunch of phone numbers. Assuming caller ID works correctly, you can use that to decide where to route the call. Customer A is calling? Route to Driver X? Driver Y is calling? Route to Customer B.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#127

Post by yid »

eridius wrote: post #110
untog wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) Presumably so that the customer can contact the driver if they need to pass on instructions about a specific place to be picked up, etc.

Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you. Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the dur…

> Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiaates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you.

Actually, I think they use some sort of phone proxy service. I once looked at my driver's phone and he had a totally different number listed for me that I did not recognize (same area code though).

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#128

Post by ryguytilidie »

eridius wrote: post #98
potatolicious wrote: post #11

Wow. This is low. The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics." No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that". I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.

It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

I don't feel like the fact that they defrauded the drivers/service because they wanted their information from them makes this any less fraudulent...

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#130

Post by potatolicious »

icebraining wrote: post #54
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #33

One man's dirty tricks is another man's free market - http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?

No one; higher fees due to state-enforced limited supply are more than enough to keep the poor from riding taxis. "Nearly half of [NYC taxi] passengers have a household income of $100,000 or more a year." (2014 Taxicab Fact Book)

I'm not sure if that fact implies what you think it implies. There are many effects in NYC in particular that keep the poor from riding taxis:

- A highly effective and heavily taxpayer-supported mass transit system (aka the subway) that gets people around marginally slower than taxis, and actually faster than taxis during peak hours. Rides are $2.50, less when purchased in bulk.

- A restricted supply of taxis has meant supply concentrates in the southern portion of Manhattan where fares are frequent and relatively short (maximizing profitability as there is a $3.50 meter drop immediately when taking a new passenger). Taxi drivers strongly avoid areas where fares are less frequent, and rides are longer - and surprise, that's where poor people are.

These have nothing to do with higher fees - enforced supply has resulted in lack of taxi availability to the poor, but not because of high fees. Cab drivers are incentivized to min-max their fares, regardless of how much their medallions cost.

There is actually a program out right now: boro taxis, which are only allowed to operate in the outer boroughs - away from the wealthy parts of Manhattan. This program was specifically started to offset the supply crowding and allow people in more far-flung neighborhoods (read: poorer) accessibility to cabs. They charge the same rates as every other taxi in the city.

Post reply on HN