Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Databases Transportation

Uber and Lyft Create a Shared Database of Drivers Banned For Assault (engadget.com) 124

Uber and Lyft will work together to share information on US drivers and delivery people accused of physical and sexual assault to ensure those individuals are banned on both platforms, the two companies announced on Thursday in separate blog posts. Engadget reports: HireRight, a company that specializes in conducting background checks, will oversee the Industry Sharing Safety Program database. Other transportation and delivery companies in the US will have the chance to contribute and access the database as long as they adhere to the same data accuracy and privacy policies that Uber and Lyft must follow.

"We want to share this information with each other and hopefully in the near future with other companies, so that our peers in this space can be informed and make decisions for their own platforms to keep those platforms safe," Jennifer Brandenburger, Lyft's head of policy development, told NBC News. The database won't include information on victims. Additionally, the incident that landed a driver in the database will fall in broad categories.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber and Lyft Create a Shared Database of Drivers Banned For Assault

Comments Filter:
  • Accused? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Some Guy ( 21271 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @05:16AM (#61150732)
    Isn't there a court system in the US? And a way to conduct background checks through the police?
    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      There is, but not what you think it is.

      In North America, each state/province has it's own DMV, and the state/municipal police have access to this database. So for example if you have a significant number of moving offences, you lose your license and/or can not renew insurance on a vehicle. If you punch your passengers, these will not be recorded on the driving abstract.

      You can get a drivers abstract straight from the DMV in most cases, and what makes the Uber/Lyft/etc unique in this respect is that someone

      • Re: Accused? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by orlanz ( 882574 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @06:14AM (#61150804)

        The assaults should be reported to the police under state or even federal laws; not via the DMV. And background checks can be done across states.

        These private databases are going to become judge & jury to some sections of our society. This is not right, past crimes should not deem you unfit for employment if society has forgiven you and/or you have done your time.

        • Re: Accused? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @07:15AM (#61150884) Homepage Journal

          Something like that happened in the UK. There was a secret list of "troublemakers" in the construction industry. Not just those accused of crimes, but people who were active with unions or who complained about health and safety issues.

          It was eventually discovered and some compensation awarded to people placed on it.

          • by malkavian ( 9512 )

            There was also one about childcare, where you needed to register yourself to be able to care for even neighbours kids. And the accusation of any impropriety meant no, you couldn't look after anyone else's kids. Full stop. No access to the case, or the complainant, or the complaint. You were simply not allowed to look after kinds.
            I detest systems of guilt by accusation.They're intellectually lazy, and end up as tools for the malicious to attack with.

            • Re: Accused? (Score:4, Informative)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @09:11AM (#61151122) Homepage Journal

              IIRC the proposal was to allow anyone with a valid reason, like a parent employing a babysitter, to ask the police about that person. The police would reveal if they were considered a threat to childen.

              The problem was that people found out they were on the list but couldn't find out why. The police wouldn't say, and in cases where it went to court and they did find out it was sometimes for things like allegations that weren't even investigated.

        • The assaults should be reported to the police under state or even federal laws; not via the DMV. And background checks can be done across states.

          These private databases are going to become judge & jury to some sections of our society. This is not right, past crimes should not deem you unfit for employment if society has forgiven you and/or you have done your time.

          I think a requirement should be that the crime was reported, and the accused allowed to contest it with the company. If the accuser fails to file a police report then that is their choice but you can't blacklist a driver for that.

      • Unfortunately privacy needs will likely never permit data from inside the vehicle to be recorded and used against the driver or any victim

        State dependent. Some states only require the consent of one individual in the sound or video recording.

    • Uber and Lyft are private enterprises and as such already reserve the right to ban anyone from their platform for any reason including no reason at all. They don't have to wait for you to get convicted to exercise the right to refuse service.
      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by pitdingo ( 649676 )

        are you sure? bakers can not refuse to bake you a cake.

        • I'm aware of that case and it's a blatant intrusion into private business that never should have happened.

          Honestly that case speaks more ill about stupid judges and our reliance on a discretionary appeal system that lets high courts sweep the mistakes of lower courts under the rug.

          I looked at the case in question and both the state and federal supreme courts denied certiorari

          • I'm aware of that case and it's a blatant intrusion into private business that never should have happened.

            Overturned, but now my FSM bakery can refuse service to Christians based on my religious freedomz:

            https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

            • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

              > but now my FSM bakery can refuse service to Christians based on my religious freedomz

              Actually it can't. As long as they don't ask you to make art that denigrates the FSM or any of his noodly appendages, you can't say no- the baker's case relied on him being unable to be forced to express a view he didn't agree with, not, as is often misreported, some right to not serve gay people, or Christians, etc.

              Keep in mind this particular baker is flooded with political activists asking for cakes deliberately de

              • > but now my FSM bakery can refuse service to Christians based on my religious freedomz

                Actually it can't. As long as they don't ask you to make art that denigrates the FSM or any of his noodly appendages, you can't say no- the baker's case relied on him being unable to be forced to express a view he didn't agree with, not, as is often misreported, some right to not serve gay people, or Christians, etc.

                Keep in mind this particular baker is flooded with political activists asking for cakes deliberately designed to be offensive to someone with his beliefs- like if you want to make art, you have to have absolutely no limits on the art you make, or an endless parade of edgy fedora tippers will trek from all corners of the globe to try to make the government force you to express an opinion you don't believe, a full reversal of the first amendment.

                Actually, if I find that it is offensive to me - I consider christians to be a blasphemy upon my religion. So I am well within my religious freedoms to not participate in blasphemy.

                Although I hear some christians want to make themselves into a protected group.

        • are you sure? bakers can not refuse to bake you a cake.

          You do know that that ruling was overturned. You can indeed refuse to make a dildo cake. You can indeed now refuse to make a cross shaped cake, or if you don't like the color of a person's hair. But it's more fun to be the poor pathetic conservative victim even after your story is wrong, and sometimes backfires on ya - funny how quickly y'all brave strong patriots that will stand your ground and won't put up with no shit turn into whiny victims, amirite?

        • Sure they can. They just can't say "I refuse to bake you a cake because you are ." This means that bakers who tell a gay couple they won't bake them a wedding cake because it is for a gay wedding are engaging in illegal discrimination. If you went to the baker and said you want a cake to celebrate you beating a charge of rape, the baker could refuse to bake you a cake because that is not a protected class. And, of course, you could ask the baker to make you a cake and he could say "No and get the fuck out o
        • Twitter and Youtube can refuse your posts :)

        • Interesting, turns out it happened in two states with conflicting results.

          Oregon: https://www.opb.org/news/artic... [opb.org]

          Colorado: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

      • by malkavian ( 9512 )

        This is all predicated on the judgement of people to have a rational reason to make an action.
        Without that, you'd have people randomly banned for no reason, which would impact business, which would lead to bad things (for the company).
        This doesn't happen, largely because most people don't go looking to stir up trouble unless they need to.
        I used to tend bar for many years (loved the job), and we always had the right to not serve anyone for any reason. In well over a decade of being in that role (eventually

      • by Rakhar ( 2731433 )

        This isnt "refusing service", this is creating a database linking people to criminal behavior based purely on hearsay and sharing that data with another company that a person does not work for.

        There are multiple issues with it, but the obvoius one is libel. That's why many companies use The Work Number, which wont divulge details like that.

        As others have pointed out, if convicted of the crime it will already show up in a background check. This is overstepping boundaries, and hopefully will be stopped.

    • Most states will let you access court records online, but it's pretty limited in what you get back in terms of details on the crime, but for violent crimes this shouldn't matter.

      There's a bunch of problems with all of this to unpack.

      In an ideal world, there should be an official law enforcement database you access for some level of criminal activity background checks, and it should be the ONLY database *anyone* is allowed to access for this information. Because a big problem is third parties who pack datab

      • Everything you said is irrelevant because the people in this database are never accused of a crime by the police and the supposed victim never goes to the police.

        But there's another problem which I think get less discussion, and it's that some low-level arrests don't ever get prosecuted and turned into convictions.

        That is irrelevant as this is specifically for sexual assault.

      • by Rakhar ( 2731433 )

        The thing is, it cant hold the data to let you challenge it in the first place. They're using broad categories to avoid appearing to accuse people on the list of any specific incident, since they're relying on hearsay. That has the added benefit of making it impossible to challenge claims, as the details wont be in the data.

        These companies were already given free passes to wreck worker's rights with the whole "contractors" thing. They'll just keep pushing until they hit a wall.

        • You're not wrong, and I don't especially like private industry running a blacklist to deny employment.

          That being said, I think American has kind of long been plagued by failures in the criminal justice system to deliver criminal justice in an accountable and equitable way.

          The inequity leads to weaker prosecutions and more people who are technically guilty of crimes out on the street as politicians and prosecutors pull back on prosecutions as a part of a civil rights agenda. This in turn leads to the public

    • Isn't there a court system in the US? And a way to conduct background checks through the police?

      I wonder if there is a bad sentence in that writeup. There is a background check process, but to take a mere accusal as opposed to a plead of guilty or a conviction is going to place a lot of divorced men on Uber's ban list. A lot of men are accused of abuse with no evidence whatsoever.

    • Isn't there a court system in the US? And a way to conduct background checks through the police?

      Yes, there is. But, this isn't about courts. It is about companies. They are saying that people can call the ride share company instead of the police and say they were sexually assaulted, not have the claim investigated by the police, and have a driver banned from the industry. This is because, supposedly, many victims of sexual assault are afraid to go to the police.

      Basically, this way, there doesn't have be evidence or an investigation and thus no police record at all because "believe victims" even if t

    • And a way to conduct background checks through the police?

      But that might make the Uber humanoid asset appear like an employee.And that is unacceptable. To Uber - and maybe Lyft ; I've still never seen either, and I'm not sure if Lyft operate in this country at all.

    • It pleases me to no end that this is the first comment I saw and that it was moderated to +5 insightful. Accusations are never enough to act on. If there is a pattern of accusations without proof, there should definitely be a deeper investigation than any single incident caused, but there is nothing actionable about mere accusations.

  • by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @05:18AM (#61150734)

    Does no-one see the problem there ?

  • Great, so you're accused of something and now you're banned from the whole industry and cannot do this line of work for a living anymore. This is extremely easy for these companies to do, and it has zero cost to them. For the wrongfully accused, there is no justice it seems.
    • "Uber customer service how may I help you?"
      Cheapskate piece of shit: "Umm I was raped I want my money back."

      People will do this for free rides to save a few bucks, and also out of sheer spite for someone. If someone makes an accusation you should trust them but by verify and tell them to file a police report. Loss of job or reputation to lies is why there are laws against slander and libel.

      • Re:*Accused* (Score:4, Informative)

        by nagora ( 177841 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @05:53AM (#61150776)

        People will do this for free rides to save a few bucks, and also out of sheer spite for someone.

        Spite is the big one.

        The problem is that saying "some people make accusations of rape for revenge" gets the whole "Oh, you defend rapists now?" routine down on your head.

        • Or busted for copyright infringement.
        • The problem is that saying "some people make accusations of rape for revenge"

          The problem is saying that with the implication that it is somehow almost as common as legitimate rape accusations, not to mention unreported rape.

          • by nagora ( 177841 )

            The problem is that saying "some people make accusations of rape for revenge"

            The problem is saying that with the implication that it is somehow almost as common as legitimate rape accusations, not to mention unreported rape.

            So "some" doesn't mean anything, then? It's just skipped over?

            • Some doesn't mean anything when the person bringing it up is obviously implying it to be a much bigger "risk" than it is.
              • by nagora ( 177841 )

                Some doesn't mean anything when the person bringing it up is obviously implying it to be a much bigger "risk" than it is.

                So you say it never happens, then? You think rape trials are a waste of time because no one ever lies about it? That seems to be what you're implying.

              • by malkavian ( 9512 )

                That's a big claim. Where's your evidence? Or are you just making up that they're implying something because you have a subjective opinion that they are, therefore it must be fact?

          • by malkavian ( 9512 )

            No, it really isn't. Except for people who want to try and attack something by trying to redefine words like "Some". Studies have shown a fairly hefty chunk of reports as verifiably false. This doesn't include the "not enough evidence to convict".
            Some means "some", as in "a portion of". Or "There exist cases of", so that people can go an look up stats themselves and delve into it if they want stats, but can just be focused on the concept that "An accusation does not mean guilt, because there are bad act

          • The problem is saying that with the implication that it is somehow almost as common as legitimate rape accusations, not to mention unreported rape.

            It doesn't work this way. The personal risk of false accusation faced by drivers is far greater than the general risk faced by average members of the population. Drivers as individuals are constantly alone with other randos far greater than are average members of society as invidiuals. I would guess a non-hobby driver could make between a thousand and two thousand trips a year and that false to true rape/sex assault accusation ratio is between 1:10 and 1:20.

            Or to put it another way the biggest sellers on

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            the implication that it is somehow almost as common as legitimate rape accusations

            There's a case that can be made that false accusations greatly outnumber real ones.

            Certainly of the ones reported to the police - which should have a higher bar than reporting to Uber - only a miniscule percentage result in a charge, let alone a conviction.

            Of the rest, some will be a perpetrator that can't be found, insufficient evidence to prosecute, the wrong man arrested or another reason a victim can not receive justice.

            Many however will be a woman trying to avoid being caught in an affair, acting from

  • Why not go the whole hog and bring back the ducking stool?

    If a driver is accused by a passenger of assault then the company should be reporting it to the police to deal with.

    • From a practical PoV, what if the crime doesn't reach the level of being prosecuted?

      Say for example, there is a tip jar and a passenger steals $5 from it. You'd likely struggle to get a police department to pursue the case even if you had dashcam footage. Petty theft, disruptive passengers, and other minor offenses are often either not a priority or not actually a crime. You still want to remove the assholes from your service.

      • There the "star" evaluation system - if a driver (or passenger) receives too many one-star reviews, get it off the platform (i.e. don't renew its contract when it expires, or allow the drivers to see the bad rating and not offer their service).

        • Yeah, but certain things do deserve more than just a low rating penalty by one of N different companies that do identical behavior. Like this was motivated by an influencer who spat and assaulted a driver who was kicked off and then said 'fine, I'll join your competitors'. It's regional news so the case is likely going to face actual scrutiny, but if it wasn't being recorded, chances are nothing would have happened. Infact, that same person has done it before so enforcement is too lax.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        If it's a crime, report it.

        If it's not a crime, it's not sexual assault.

  • Industry wide blackballing of workers has landed other sectors in a lot of legal difficulty in the past. If someone ends up on this list as a result of a false accusation, then this could prove very expensive for every company that then declines to employe them.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    As you scream into the void about the possibility of this being abused, I'd like you all to remember how angry you were about how expensive taxis are because of all the government regulations.

    This is what deregulation and letting corporations have all the power gets you; no rights and your entire life being subject to the whims of corporations and their PR departments' brilliant ideas.

    • Furthermore, these 2 ride sharing corps are losing money despite skimming a great deal off the top for services that are nearly all automated (software.) Plus they push tipping to avoid even more costs.

      China may have a government rating system but we'll soon have many private ones that will have to do extremely bad things before it even gets the public's outrage high enough for a few regulations (likely with loopholes if the PR and lobbyists handle it well.)

  • the idea of having a list of persons that are blackballed throught out multiple companies based on a list.
    i can see how this list is 100% going to be used to regulate drivers that even thought they do not meet the criteria. get added because they
    are troublesome for one reason or another.
    i believe some one else said there is a reason we have a judicial system and police checks that should be used for things like this. if you can not find it with a police check its prob going to be a law suit waiting to happe

  • ...in the other 194 countries where such sharing of data is a crime?

  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @06:53AM (#61150836)

    That's why you have college rape tribunals, databases like this, etc. They hate having to admit that the police are a very necessary evil.

    People lie all the time about stuff like this. It's also absolute bullshit that "victims are never believed." I was falsely accused by a girl in HS over 20 years ago. She recanted and apologized for it, but people who knew me did a 180 so fast it would make your head spin and this was deep in "redneck country."

    So don't give me that bullshit that we live in some Islamic hellhole where it takes the testimony of four women to outweigh a man's. If anything, it requires absolute evidence that nothing could have happened to get the system to not act.

    • Police have nothing to do with it. Raised by zero tolerance to have zero tolerance. Think about it, no excuses were allowed no matter how reasonable; these kids saw punishment with zero brained righteousness. They grew up into a whole generation reflecting their boomer's idiotic policies of avoiding the complexities of reality... so powerful they couldn't even be called the "Me generation" so boomer it was.

      These are kids taking up the position of an authoritarian police state; no need for actual police i

  • It was such a great idea to just ignore licensing and regulation. Let any bozo with a marginally streetable car drive strangers around. Run an app and deny you employ them. NYC Medallions aside, the majority of taxi regs were for public protection.... Uber and Amazon are easy to avoid...
  • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @08:45AM (#61151058) Journal

    Uber and Lyft will work together to share information on US drivers and delivery people accused of physical and sexual assault to ensure those individuals are banned on both platforms, the two companies announced on Thursday in separate blog posts. Engadget reports:

    What we have here is two corporations that are going to be making statements to each other about independent contractors which accuse them of a crime which has never been investigated which will then prevent said independent contractors from working in the industry. This sounds like a clear case of slander and liable. And, the fun part is, it won't be a class action suit. It will be individual suits of slander and liable against each company involved. And, maybe, after there have been enough of those, there will be a class action suit for conspiracy to restrain trade.

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      I don't think it'll count as defamation in the US. The database will record 'an accusation was made'.

      The decision not to hire is based on the accusation, not on the veracity of that, or on whether the driver has ever assaulted someone.

      In the UK the stronger defamation laws may provide protection against this, but in the US? Unlikely.

      • An accusation of sexual assault was made and the result was the driver was unable to work in the industry. Making such a statement without evidence of an actual crime in a context that effects future earnings makes it libel. Doing so professionally may make it slander.
        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          If the driver can find the source of the accusation, they can certainly look to litigate against them.

          The statement by the companies is however not an accusation of sexual assault. It is that an accusation of sexual assault was made.

          That is factually true, entirely irrespective of the validity of the accusation.

  • Two weeks ago I requested an Uber. The driver assigned to me was 35 minutes away, with traffic. I got a message from him saying that he was "too far" and that I should cancel the trip. I was deciding whether I wanted to do so (I needed to get to the airport) and apparently I took too long, so he canceled the trip himself and gave the reason "Rider was not wearing a mask". I called "diamond" customer support and they said, "Don't worry, the system already figured out that was not possible so you won't be

  • One could argue that this is necessary to cover a gap in the current process between accusation and trial: to wit, if someone driving for Gig Driving Platform A is accused of assault, and they're able to remain free (e.g. by posting bail), and they are guilty; there is currently nothing stopping them from switching to Gig Driving Platform B and repeating their offence (or worse).

    Of course, that falls into the pit of failure that the standard "guilty until proven innocent" arguments do. Unless the crime is p

  • The accused need to be able to view the actual evidence to appeal. There's a reason we have due process.

    However, it does make sense to a degree that Uber and Lyft act on petty offenses before they have cases that end up in court. If you have video evidence of a driver smacking a passenger or touching them inappropriately, then the driver should be off the road ASAP whether the victim presses charges or not. You should probably never have a Lyft or Uber take you directly home if you're concerned so they n

  • by ElitistWhiner ( 79961 ) on Friday March 12, 2021 @11:11AM (#61151462) Journal

    Blacklist’s are the bane of McCarthism, Hollywood’s kneejerk program to punish writer’s it simply chose to ostracize. NO no!

    Hell NO! I’ve ridden along Uber. I witnessed first hand driver’s being abused, well propositioned, by females in the car. Its a thing and women who are feminists will standup and acknowledge. Its their right.

    Convicted sex offenders I agree should not be trusted in service to the public!

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...