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

Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#61

Post by PeterisP »

hnbroseph wrote: post #58
EGreg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it's good for hackers to bootstrap other identities over the years. You never know when they come in handy. (Note: I have not done this. Or have I? Well, no I haven't, but if I had you wouldn't know about it.) It's one of the most interesting "careful" projects you can do. Something like "Satoshi Nakamoto" can release software to change the world, but you can compare their style of writing to the short li…

i suppose it depends on the details, but if you're asked for state-issued identification when processing a return, and you present a falsified document that purports to be state-issued, that's a almost certainly a crime. (even the creation of such a falsified document is likely a crime.)

I presume that the parent post refers not to forged documents but to obtaining legitimate identification under a different name/alias - which is generally allowed in common law countries, where you can choose and use any name you wish, as long as you are not trying to defraud someone (e.g. here's a case example from Massachusets http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/320/320mass448.html "If acting for an honest purpose, one may lawfully use a name other than his legal name without procuring a change of name").

The question there is whether avoiding a ban on returns would count as a honest purpose; arguably it would not. A standard example for inappropriate name change is changing the name to avoid seekers of debt repayment using the previous name, this seems similar in intent.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#62

Post by BurningFrog »

z3c0 wrote: post #38
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really, the only proper way to do a background check is via your local law enforcement. What in the history of policing makes you think they're immune to similar mistakes?

There's more legal recourse for a mistake from law enforcement, and furthermore, they aren't going to show cases where you were acquitted. In my case, the background check company reported a crime that I HAD been arrested for but found not guilty of. Background check companies don't do their due diligence in making sure that the records they gather are still valid. I wanted very much to sue the company that cost me t…

> There's more legal recourse...

For people who don't know lawyers, that's largely theoretical.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#63

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

mvzvm wrote: post #20
bhupy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite the unethical and immoral behavior of Uber executive leadership, from the outside Interestingly, literally every C-level exec at Uber from the Travis Kalanick era has been replaced. Uber is the "Ship of Theseus" of companies.

This is actually a good thing. Companies that can execute while rotating leadership are companies of rules, principles, etc, not companies of people. This is a very good thing.

1 principle: Make as much money as possible.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#64

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

redditmigrant wrote: post #29

This is obviously a good thing from a safety standpoint, but I worry we are increasingly becoming a one strike society. Where one instance of bad behavior locks you out of significant parts of the infrastructure. Moreoever this happens in a "court" with no documented laws/appeals process.

Cancel culture in a nutshell.

There's a reason we have "innocent until proven guilty" and lots of interlocking checks and balances in the legal system to prevent the mob from lynching people.

Nowadays they can lynch your social life and employment options over a drunken tweet.

How do we fix this?

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#65

Post by londons_explore »

badRNG wrote: post #40
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really, the only proper way to do a background check is via your local law enforcement. What in the history of policing makes you think they're immune to similar mistakes?

Let's say you are mistaken for a wanted robber and arrested and later acquitted or have the charges dropped, when that record is expunged, there is a legal duty for the government to destroy all records related to that arrest. If they don't, you have political and legal recourse. A third-party company doesn't have the same legal obligation, nor does the public have any democratic control over that organization. Data…

In Europe, a third party company would have a legal obligation to keep their records accurate.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#66

Post by bawolff »

seany wrote: post #31
jasode wrote: post #18

Examples of competitors sharing data about bad customers across several industries: - competitor banks share information about people who bounce checks - competitor insurance companies share data about customers with fraudulent claims - competitor casinos share photos of card counters Probably many others I can't think of. EDIT to reply: thanks for the customers' returns example. I found a story explaining the shared…

Why are any of these things good for the consumer? All of these sound like DBs that should be limited if possible.

Rideshare banning bad customers means more people will work for them due to less fear of being murdered by crazies. End result, i can get an uber when i want one. Seems like a win for me.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#67

Post by bmicraft »

bawolff wrote: post #66
seany wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are any of these things good for the consumer? All of these sound like DBs that should be limited if possible.

Rideshare banning bad customers means more people will work for them due to less fear of being murdered by crazies. End result, i can get an uber when i want one. Seems like a win for me.

It also means if you were banned in error you are banned everywhere and there is exactly nothing you can do about it. This is bad.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#68

Post by smt88 »

cwkoss wrote: post #56

I wonder if they'll start sharing data on banned passengers. I think this is a much more interesting and nuanced social issue. A recent viral video this week showed a woman assaulting an Uber driver, she livestreamed on IG to try to justify her actions and in the process said that she would only be using Lyft, then lyft tweeted that they pre-emptively banned her. If FAANG joined together to make a shared blocked user…

> they could effectively make a digital caste system subject to little current government oversight

You mean like credit scores?

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#69

Post by belval »

cwkoss wrote: post #56

I wonder if they'll start sharing data on banned passengers. I think this is a much more interesting and nuanced social issue. A recent viral video this week showed a woman assaulting an Uber driver, she livestreamed on IG to try to justify her actions and in the process said that she would only be using Lyft, then lyft tweeted that they pre-emptively banned her. If FAANG joined together to make a shared blocked user…

Honestly I think FAANG know better than to try to do something like that. They are already getting closer to regulatory action to limit their influence and some politicians want to see them be broken up.

And that's just in the US, if they pull something like that in the EU it's almost certain there would be new laws put in place to inflict heavy fines.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#70

Post by goldenManatee »

bawolff wrote: post #66
seany wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are any of these things good for the consumer? All of these sound like DBs that should be limited if possible.

Rideshare banning bad customers means more people will work for them due to less fear of being murdered by crazies. End result, i can get an uber when i want one. Seems like a win for me.

I do agree on services sharing banned users data, for safety or compliance reasons. But this should be limited to a set period of time, because the person you were 10 years ago grew up from who you are now and will be in 10, 20, 30 years from now. We all grow and hopefully learn from mistakes.

An implication of this “banned users” data sharing is that this data exchange must be overseen by regulators, to enforce equal access to competitors to this data and also that companies drop people from the “banned users” database after some time, not penalized for life except in rare cases.

I would argue that most users’ petty behaviors that lead to banning do not deserve to make them pay for it the rest of their lives - and that there are rare exceptions who do deserve to be banned for life because certain users’ behavior is so egregious.

Also, consider cases for jurisdictional banning and global banning. Some behaviors are not allowed in certain countries. Take a gay couple kissing in a car in Saudi Arabia - should this couple be banned? If so, just if attempting to use services in Saudi Arabia, or globally? These are serious and important considerations.

Post reply on HN