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

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#71

Post by throwaway53453 »

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…

Cancel culture ensures we basically have that already... How many times has an undesirable been unpersoned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube within hours?

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#72

Post by covidthrow »

z3c0 wrote: post #27

A noble effort, but I'm certainly concerned about the use of a background check company. This is anecdotal, but I've missed out on a job before due to misreporting from a background check company. The amount of hoops I had to go through to prevent the mistake from happening again took years - and of course, the opportunity for that job was long gone by then. Really, the only proper way to do a background check is via…

FWIW, I used to work for a background check company and they operated exceedingly ethically. If there was a hit, for example, they would reach out to the given agencies and confirm that it was actually that exact person before reporting the results.

Far as I understood it, that was exceptionally rare in the industry. Not sure how prolific their customer base was or if they're still active.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#73

Post by covidthrow »

ceejayoz wrote: post #30
z3c0 wrote: post #27

A noble effort, but I'm certainly concerned about the use of a background check company. This is anecdotal, but I've missed out on a job before due to misreporting from a background check company. The amount of hoops I had to go through to prevent the mistake from happening again took years - and of course, the opportunity for that job was long gone by then. Really, the only proper way to do a background check is via…

> 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?

In my (limited) experience, mistakes among LEAs is more along the lines of they have data that doesn't match a real person. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but getting people mixed up isn't something that I've seen.

There's a lot of entropy in first/middle/last names, DOBs, SSN, driver's license, etc. so accidental typo matches just means bad data, not some other person.

(Obviously, intentional identity theft notwithstanding.)

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#74

Post by floatingatoll »

If only there were a commercial passenger permitting system that already existed, ensuring that drivers who should not be carrying passengers were denied operating license regardless of the business they work with.

(For those not familiar, we do already have this in the US, but Uber/Lyft wanted their drivers not to be commercially-licensed, so now they have to reimplement the DMV.)

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#76

Post by throwAway_0x0x »

EGreg wrote: post #34
jackson1442 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ask for photo ID when you do a return.

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…

Very interesting, I have three citizenships, I acquired the third after I changed my name in the second citizenship and on the basis of my second citizenship. The changed name in the third citizenship is not declared as it is my legitimate name and as far as I am aware I am under no obligation to (they didnt ask during application). In short I have, a full set of legitimate government documents in another name (with no direct link to my original citizenship). I may or may not have also obsfucated my biometric data in one (or more) of the passport / official photos, this necessitates that I cannot pass through automated passport control, but I get waived through as it is obviously me. I have kept my tax affairs and banking relationships under my first citizenship, and essentially view my third citizenship as entirely remote to the first. I may renounce my citizenship of the second country soon. The reason for all of this? I like hacking and exploring systems and I also think the notion of state sovereignty is outdated. AMA.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#77

Post by kccqzy »

us0r wrote: post #23
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…

> competitor insurance companies share data about customers with fraudulent claims I'm pretty sure it's any claim. If you want to see something scary request your lexis nexus consumer report.

When I switched to a new homeowners insurance provider, the insurance company helpfully mailed me a letter containing all my previous claims (not that there are many), even including claims from renters insurance policies.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#78

Post by bawolff »

goldenManatee wrote: post #70
bawolff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 equa…

I'm not arguing that its a perfect utopia or even good per se, just that there exists a benefit to the average consumer, in response to the GP's question.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#79

Post by chii »

PeterisP wrote: post #61
hnbroseph wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

avoiding a ban on returns should certainly be considered fraudulant - you're banned by the store's policy, which you would have agreed to when purchasing.

Re: Uber and Lyft to swap data on banned drivers

#80

Post by chii »

goldenManatee wrote: post #70
bawolff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 equa…

> 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

the gov't can require that each company has an appeals process, which can be brought to a court if the banned user decides that it's worth escalating.

In fact, i think a general, low cost court process for digital service providers would make for a great consumer protection, but still allow digital services to be flexible in how they want to provide. For example, google can still ban people, but the user can appeal, and if the user is unsatisfied with the appeal, they can go to court (without costing exorbitant amounts of money).

Post reply on HN