Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#171

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:25 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #168

Someone1234 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know that more women are raped every year in UK & US than in India? No, but I do know you don't understand reporting and statistics. The UK has had massive reforms between the 1980s and now. Police are required, by law, to record every single accusation of rape irrespective of if it results in a prosecution or even an attempted prosecution. That has resulted in the UK's "rate of rape" going through the roof,…

> No, but I do know you don't understand reporting and statistics No personal attacks on HN, please. This comment has a good argument. Abrasiveness tarnishes it.

That wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of fact based on the obvious misinformation within their post (which was worse pre-edit, by the way).

If someone said "the moon is made of cheese" and someone replies "you don't understand what the moon is made of" that isn't a person attack, since it was directed at their argument not their character.

If I had called them names, broadly questioned their intelligence, accused them of bias, and so on those are all personal attacks. Poking their argument with "you don't understand the topic" is none of the above and not even in the same ballpark.

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#172

Post by lokeshk » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:28 PM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #17

RealGeek wrote: post #10

Uber is not being banned just because of this rape incident. Uber did not following Indian laws & Delhi transport regulations, and operated illegally under the radar. Before this incident, Delhi Government was not aware about how Uber operated. This incident prompted Indian authorities to investigate the operations of Uber. Uber's stance is that we are not a taxi company, we are an app company; so we do not need to f…

No sexual offenses From the article: "Uber, which had employed the driver even though he had been arrested on allegations of sexual assault three years ago" THe implication there is that he had not been convicted of any offense - which means no sexual offense was [in the eyes of the law...] committed. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand yeah, he was arrested for it and convicted or not, that's probably a risk U…

Agreed! If anything, the law and the enforcement agencies should be questioned on how the accused was let loose if he was guilty of rape earlier. Here's a screenshot doing rounds of the clean record certificate given by the Delhi police to the accused for Uber, though not confirmed by the police themselves: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4UpufJCAAEDCqC.jpg

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#173

Post by RealGeek » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:30 PM UTC

Eleutheria wrote: post #138

Let me see... If I buy a gun and shoot you, the government will ban gun manufacturers? If I buy a baseball bat and smash your skull, the govt will ban all sports? If I buy a potato and stick it in your throat and you die, the govt will ban agriculture? If I offer you a ride (free or for a fee) and then decide to rape you and bury you in a forest, the govt will ban auto makers? How does that make sense?

India is not banning cars or taxis on the road. They are saying that Uber shall not operate until they get permits and comply with the law.

If the law requires you to go through a background check and obtain a license to buy a gun; but you don't get a license, you buy a gun and then shoot someone. Clearly, you would be liable for the crime.

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#174

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:30 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #31

RealGeek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other side of that an accusation or suspicion isn't a reasonable basis on which to ruin someone's employability. Would you marry or co-found a company with someone who was charged with a crime like murder, rape, robbery or fraud; but was let go after serving 7 months in prison because of insufficient evidence which could not meet the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Unfortunately, rape cases are very hard…

Unfortunately, rape cases are very hard to convict (even in US) because police & prosecutors does not take rape investigations seriously. They are hard to convict because usually there are no witnesses and it turns into he said / she said. I see a lot of people wishing it were not so, but the legal system has severe punishments and thus a high bar for conviction (or that's how it's supposed to be).

It's more complex than that. If we have words on the street, and I punch you and break your nose, you won't have any problems getting your complaint taken seriously. Nobody gets their nose broken for pleasure; even boxing clubs and so on have rules of conduct and activities are generally supervised to ensure conduct remains within those boundaries.

On the other hand, people have sex for pleasure a lot, and sexual activity is strongly linked to emotion, so if you come to the police with a tale of an unwelcome sexual encounter you have to answer all these extra questions about consent and secondary motive to get taken seriously. If a complainant doesn't show obvious signs of physical trauma indicating a violent struggle, then it can often be a problem to get the complaint of rape to be taken seriously and investigated urgently.

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#175

Post by atonse » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:31 PM UTC

snlacks wrote: post #69

atonse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what then, an Uber customer would have to just say "yeah ok rapes happen so let me keep taking Uber"? The point is, Uber is claiming to be better than cabbies in that they screen drivers, etc. Clearly they aren't doing anything of the sort. So they are as unsafe as taking any other cab.

I did not say that Uber doesn't have issues to address, I said that the Indian government has underlying issues, and can't scapegoat forever. Not every situation in life has clear sides of "good guys" and "bad guys" or who's "to blame." Cause is a moving bar, and has different value depending what we are talking about causing. Uber causes it's passengers to be in danger by not ensuring the people behind the wheel. In…

I'm not arguing about the scapegoating or anything. I'm just saying that Uber markets itself as "we don't hire those creeps" - but it sounds like they ARE hiring those creeps. So what's the point of using Uber in Delhi when you are as unsafe as you would be in a regular taxicab?

What's the value proposition of Uber in that case? Just the convenience of using the app?

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#176

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:37 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #105

coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@tomp > even though the underlying mathematical principles are the same. Don't hire a man because he could be a rapist? OK. Don't hire a woman because she might give birth? Outrageous. Yeah, one is not hiring someone who forces and hurts people for his sexual pleasure, the other is not hiring someone giving birth, something we celebrate, and helps human society continue existing. I don't even know what "the underlyin…

Oh for goodness sake. The point was, as an employer or potential partner, you want someone who will be effective in that role. Whilst being distracted would be a negative, regardless of the reason for that distraction. Not a moral argument; a statistical one as stated - avoid anyone with any chance of distraction is a valid game-theory strategy.

An overly narrow view. A predictably potential rapist who was subsequently convicted would become permanently unavailable and and could bring down a huge liability on an employer. An employee who gives birth (or who becomes a father) is engaging in normal human activity; you treat that the same way you treat any other indisposition like an unexpected health condition, and hedge against it.

Really, ask yourself how you'd feel if a prospective employer or business partner said 'Joe, what assurance can you give me that you're not going to knock your wife up and go all googly-eyed over some squalling infant a year from now? Can you commit to tying a knot in it?'

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#177

Post by mike_hearn » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:45 PM UTC

avalaunch wrote: post #104

mike_hearn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide evidence for that? It seems common sense that a GPS unit, even one that cannot be disabled, would only be useful as evidence to follow up on after an alleged crime took place. I don't see any way to use it to prevent a crime happening in the first place.

Knowing that there will be evidence to follow up on after a crime is committed is often enough to deter the crime from being committed.

Why is location that the rape took place relevant? What triggers the investigation is the allegation, not GPS data.

Look, I'm not trying to be dense here. But the idea that the crime would not have happened if Uber cars had undisableable GPS doesn't seem totally well thought out. After all, "you switched off your phone GPS between these times with someone in the car" is nearly as damning as "you pulled over into a quiet area and the car stopped for a while before it drove onwards".

Additionally, I thought Uber tracks drivers through the customers GPS? That's how they know the car took a longer than expected route? If they relied on the drivers app to self-report it'd only be a matter of time until someone made an app that fed false data to Uber and started selling it to bent cabbies.

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#178

Post by piyush_soni » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:53 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #110

lettergram wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported), rather, there was not enough evidence to convict. I would still argue that there is a high amount of under-reporting because people are embarrassed, just want to put it behind them, etc. However, I also feel a large number of the reported cases are skewed due to angry ex-girlfriends, intoxication, etc. Specifically,…

I would urge you to re-think your writing. "The rape wouldn't have even been an issue" indicates that you haven't thought very deeply about rape; if this woman was raped, it is certainly still an issue whether Uber can legally cover its ass or not. It is unfortunate how popular your opinion is among young men: rape really isn't an issue; lots of "angry ex-girlfriends" and "intoxication" skewing those reports (factual…

While the grandparent comment didn't claim his statement as a fact, you are mentioning your contradictory statement as a 'fact' (factually incorrect? What?) Being raped really sucks, yes, and IMO the rapist should get the most severe punishment imaginable, but being falsely accused of rape is even worse - it destroys the whole career and life of an innocent man - and this is something that happens a lot in India and anyone having a few contacts in Police knows that.

Also, not sure about other countries, in India a woman's statement is enough for a man to be arrested immediately, even if it was a false accusation.

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#179

Post by dnautics » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:58 PM UTC

sriramk wrote: post #136

I think Uber is being unfairly maligned here - too long for a comment, long piece at https://medium.com/@sriramk/in-defense-of-uber-in-india-f81c... . tldr: Uber just can't do the same checks it does in the US in other parts of the world which don't have records. And even though it did actually get the right certificate from the cops in this case, they should have thought of doing more.

"Delhi has thousands of taxi drivers, cab companies, private transport vehicles — no one bothers asking for any sort of real background check for anyone driving these things. I have friends who own cab companies — their “driver check” is asking the driver whether he has a license."

I am no fan of uber (although I drive for them, but mostly their competitor, which I prefer). But I think this comment is apt.

Re: Uber banned from operating in Indian capital after rape accusation

#180

Post by anu_gupta » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 7:59 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #59

awinder wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/delhi-rape-one-conv... Of 706 reported rape cases, 1 lead to an actual conviction. So you have an under-reported category of crime which is irregularly prosecuted. There's obvious ethical issues with denying jobs to people based on accusation rather than conviction, but in a society with a broken justice system surrounding that, there's ethical dilemmas no matter how you slice…

I would just like to point out, that the crimes aren't necessarily under-reported (i.e. 706 reported), rather, there was not enough evidence to convict. I would still argue that there is a high amount of under-reporting because people are embarrassed, just want to put it behind them, etc. However, I also feel a large number of the reported cases are skewed due to angry ex-girlfriends, intoxication, etc. Specifically,…

> However, I also feel a large number of the reported cases are skewed due to angry ex-girlfriends, intoxication, etc.

What are you actually trying to say here? How are these cases skewed?