UberX Runs Into Trouble In Australia With NSW Suspending Vehicle Registration 166
Harlequin80 writes: RMS (Roads & Maritime Service), the New South Wales' governing body for transport, has begun suspending the vehicle registration of UberX drivers. After failing to deter drivers through prosecutions, with Uber covering fines and legal costs of its drivers, RMS has begun suspending the registration of the vehicles as it forces the vehicle off the road for three months. Under the NSW Passenger Transport Act, paid ride sharing is illegal, and this will see UberX drivers losing the use of their vehicle for both Uber and personal use.
How dare they! (Score:1)
It is an affront to the liberty of Uber if they aren't allowed to operate as they please, where they please, how they please!
Re:How dare they! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hilarious.... but sadly might be true shortly.
The whole point of the new Trans Pacific Trade (and its Euro equivalent) agreement is Corporate Sovereignty, the right of corporations to sue countries for violating their rights to ply their trades however they see fit.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-does-isds-mean-corporate-sovereignty-pure-simple.shtml
If they win the lawsuit, the country will be required to change the law to make whatever they blocked legal, regardless of the democracy or elected government. These cases will be heard by a tribunal of ex- Corporate laws (I kid you not, corporate lawyers will sit in private session and decide if the country needs to change its laws to make it legal).
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/10/investors-are-increasingly-challenging-states-constitutional-court-decisions-in-investor-state-tribu.html
So Uber might one day be able to sue countries for daring to have long standing rules about Taxis that interfere with Ubers advantage. Ubers advantage is not be bound by the laws of taxis!
Re: (Score:3)
+1000 insightful. That's literally what that trade agreement is about.
Re: (Score:1)
So Uber might one day be able to sue countries for daring to have long standing rules about Taxis that interfere with Ubers advantageis!
You say this like it is a bad thing. Most taxi regulation is about keeping out competition.
That the service is so popular shows The People like it.
No, they don't. That's the PR talking. (Score:2)
Perhaps if you talked to the people that get shortchanged by driving it, you would see the problems that go beyond taxis.
The Focus Group Minority might like it, but nobody else.
Re: (Score:2)
How are the users of a service ("Focus Group Minority") a "minority"? There are far more customers than providers. I think there needs to be balance, but let's not totally dismiss those being serviced.
Get elected, change the law (Score:1)
Well if you think that and don't like it, get elected and change the laws.
There's no reason a lawsuit and tribunal should ever be able to override the laws of a land. The government decides what is law, and the people decide who is government. And corporations have to convince the people its in their interests to change the laws.
See how that work?
People > Government > Corporations
*Not*
Corporation > Government > People.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point.
In the USA, at least, if the government signs and ratifies a treaty, possibly like the *Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement mentioned in the GGP, that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.
*IANAL, so I am not sure if the TPPA woul
Re: (Score:3)
... that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.
A common misconception. Treaties don't "trump" the U.S. Constitution, they form the highest law of the land alongside the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Treaties do take precedence over state constitutions and laws. The only thing that would trump the U.S. Constitution, however, would be an amendment or constitutional convention. The federal government cannot bypass its own constitutional limits by entering into treaties any more than it can grant itself unconstitutional powers by passing laws. Only the sta
Re: (Score:3)
You say this like it is a bad thing.
That's because companies being able to sue Governments (ie: the People) for preventing them from doing whatever they want in the name of making money is indeed A Very Bad Thing.
Most taxi regulation is about keeping out competition.
No, very little taxi regulation is about keeping out competition - basically the artificial limits on how many plates are issued and requirement to use a specific dispatch service. Most of it is about protecting passengers, drivers and the pub
Re: (Score:2)
You say this like it is a bad thing. Most taxi regulation is about keeping out competition.
That the service is so popular shows The People like it.
You said this like a short-sighted person. How about you apply the same concept to other situations besides Uber? How about a company you are working for found ways to exploit employees (including you), and the laws used to prohibit those work around but were revoked because of the court ruling? Then which side would you be?
Re: (Score:2)
In many places, people who drive commercially are required to have a commercial driver's license and insurance to a higher standard than the general public. These requirements are usually fairly easy to meet, and hence aren't anti-competitive. There are reasons for limiting the number of taxis on the road, but the restriction is pretty much anti-competitive.
Uber doesn't like any form of regulation, anti-competitive or not. By flouting all regulations, they're trying to drive out all competition.
Re:How dare they! (Score:5, Insightful)
The pendulum swung to far, and Uber came to life to restore balance, but we (and goverment) needs to make sure that the pendulum doesn't swing to much into another direction and we don't get repeat of what we had before.
Re: (Score:3)
mmm, in much of the UK we have a middle ground which seems to work fairly well. What people loosely reffer to as "taxi's" are split into "hackney carridges" and "private hire cars". The fomer are heavilly regulated and limited in number (so the streets aren't flooded with taxi's looking for jobs). The latter are regulated more lightly and AIUI they are not limited in number but they are only allowed to take journeys pre-booked through an operator.
Re: (Score:2)
Poland is - unfortunately - also an EU country, so writing "and many EU countries" is, at the very least, strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISDS doesn't do what you're claiming it does.
The point of ISDS is to handle the case where a company invests in a country and the country then changes its laws such that the investment is invalidated. This has a habit of occurring in some less well run parts of the world as part of e.g. attempting to advantage home grown companies, or appropriating their assets.
ISDS cannot force a country to change its laws. It's a voluntary mechanism by which countries agree to pay compensation to the investors that they j
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they people? (Score:3)
Re:Are they people? (Score:4, Insightful)
It violates what rights? Even in the US you don't have the right to earn money through illegal means. And you also don't have the right to always operate a vehicle on the public highways. So what rights are being violated?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that depends on whether you consider there is ANY utility to the concept of the common good.
If you totally abandon that idea and make everything about self-interest, then naturally you will see all decisions as an expression of some self-interested person's taking advantage, or alternately see them as insane, unpredictable and rather scary.
If you consider that there can be ANY sort of a common or collective good, then the concept of illegality isn't too difficult. It's like murder: in some sense,
Re: (Score:2)
Are corporations people in NSW? If so, like in the US, this violates their rights.
To answer your question, no, in Australia corporations do not have the same rights as people.
A corporation doesn't break laws in Australia, individuals do and they are charged as individuals (if a company tries to hide behind a corporate identity, the board and CEO can be charged). This is why the Uber X drivers had their licenses suspended. A corporation can pay a fine, but they can't give them back their licenses.
Of course RMS is against Uber! (Score:3)
They need to bring out GNUberX...
Re: (Score:1)
I can see all the hip guys walking around, giving each other 'skin,' and saying, "What up, my GNUber?"
Re: (Score:2)
Then you'll have Apple offering OSberX, where your car has to have a minimum MSRP of $60k and similar requirements of its customers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the motorcycle version, with much lower minimums.
Re: (Score:2)
Pronounced "N00ber", of course. :P
Maritime ??? (Score:1)
Last I checked, it was a landlocked country, so why do they have a "Maritime" service????
:
:
Yes, it is intended to poke fun at people who confuse Austria with Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When I read your post, the first one, I did not see the bottom part. I stared at it. I stared at it some more. I spent probably a minute of IRL time (maybe a little less) staring at it and wondering if someone was that confused. I think I saw the rest of your post as your signature so I didn't read it. So, yes. Someone was that confused. That someone was me. >:(
Yes, yes I do have a strange affinity for emoticons today.
Either way, I'm still pissed about what they did to Helen Keller. I read her book in sc
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest you check again. Not only is Australia not landlocked, it in fact doesn't have any land borders. The coast is the border. Perhaps you are thinking of Austria.
Pull it out with the root (Score:1)
Punishing the drivers doesn't help.
Issue arrest warrants for the leadership of UberX if they continue to tempt people to break the law. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that kind of NSW (Score:2)
I eagerly clicked on the story thinking that between "UberX" and "NSW" it would be a whole lot more fun.
Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides. (Score:2)
There's nothing stopping them from delivering their services under the safe, legally approved platform. The government is not denying them the ability to offer a ride - the individual is insisting on an illegal, inconsistent, and unsafe choice.
Those drivers would be able to operate within the bounds of a taxi or livery service, but that would break the Uber business model.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's still too much for Uber/UberX. Their business model is derived solely from insufficiently insured cars and misclassified workers.
To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.
Re: (Score:2)
You are partially right - they certainly do keep the price down by dodging regulations to their best ability. However, the real draw of Uber is the nicer cars and prompt service. Local monopoly providers got too complacent and couldn't be bothered to upgrade their dispatching system, and individual car owners take better care of their vehicles than fleet drivers / renters.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some way they can require legally adequate licensing and insurance and still provide nicer cars and prompt service? If that's what they're attracting customers with, raising the fares a bit to stay legal might work well.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they are technically in compliance with the law in most/many places. They push the law to the limit, though, and then adjust or lobby when ruled against. They are disruptive, but I don't think that automatically makes them "bad". Change bothers a lot of people - especially anyone content with the current system. Re-balancing the new system is going to have it's ups and downs, but I don't think the shrinking of the middle man is necessarily a bad thing if the law can catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.
I couldn't parse this, care to elaborate, please?
Uber wants to be no different than the taxi services. A vendor-neutral process would create too much competition.
The insurance Uber cars have here is approximately the double of those the cabs have.
On the other hand, the UberX service has drivers with closer-to-standard insurance packages.
Yeah, the jury is still out on the whole "sharing economy" thing. I agree there is the potential to a whole lot of abuse; but I think work over-regulation is not without its maladies, too.
The "sharing economy" is just the Aspen Institute's sugar coating of the worst in work arrangements.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Neither Uber nor any Uber driver has been convicted of violating any law in NSW. The government is suspending licenses without any legal process because when they tried to take legal action the government's cases collapsed. What is legal has nothing to do with what the government is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly sounds like being an Uber driver is illegal. If the authorities are dealing with that by yanking registration and not pursuing the matter in court, what's the problem? I assume that, if running an unlicensed cab weren't illegal, the drivers could use the court system to get their cars back along with compensation.
Except that you're wrong. (Score:2)
They've taken action against those that have gone against the NSW laws.
Perfectly within their purview to penalize improperly licensed drivers.
he (Score:2)
Trying to figure out what NSfW acts had to be taking place in those taxis that would cause them to lose their license
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I've been to NSW. Interesting country that you've got there. I was visiting Cann River a second time.
Anyhow, I'm a little torn. Isn't NSW the place that also made it pretty much illegal for two "bikey blokes" to ride together? Maybe it was three? Basically they wanted to outlaw bikie gangs. They were a bit out of sorts about it the last time I was there.
I guess, yeah, obeying the law is good and Uber's full of shit and 'can't be stuffed with following the law.' But, on the other hand, you've got an awful lo
Re: (Score:3)
No that was Queensland that passed those laws. Unlike NSW, Queensland has a single house of parliament at state level (no senate) so it's easy for a government to pass all sorts of weird laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also why Queensland had a festering corruption problem which was finally admitted in the mid 1980s but still not entirely cleaned up.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't NSW the place that also made it pretty much illegal for two "bikey blokes" to ride together?
Is that when gay couples ride tandem bicycles?
Re: (Score:1)
I have almost no trust for the later and if this is the only choice I am gonna get I still go for it anyway as the alternative does not appeal to me. Unless of course Uber will bribe me enough.
Not w/ substandard service/working conditions (Score:5, Insightful)
I have more trust for the government than I have for a benefits-dodger like Uber. The company shows hate by using contractors as a dodge against benefits as well as implying a second-tier status.
The government responds and answers to me without regard to stock ownership, while Uber responds primarily to some faceless individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
I have more trust for the government than I have for a benefits-dodger like Uber.
Not me. I trust corporations more than governments. The corporations have an incentive to be trustworthy because otherwise they will lose my business. Governments have no such motivation. During the last century, governments killed over 100 million of their own citizens. Corporations kill their customers far less frequently. If you look around the world today, people live better lives in countries with powerful corporations and weak governments, and worse where corporations are weak (or nonexistent) an
Re: (Score:3)
Only true if you have other options to go to, or if you have enough information to catch them in a lie, or if your need isn't so pressing you have time to evaluate the options, or one of many other reasons that people do business with a lousy company despite that not being the rational thing to do.
I could take the same attitude you have towards corporations, but instead towar
Re: (Score:2)
I think the word you're having trouble with is 'customer'. Consider, if you can, the idea that for nearly any concievable corporation, the rest of the people in the world are not in any sense 'customers'. They're what's technically called 'bystanders'.
Carry on like that and you'll be calling yourself Google's, or Facebook's 'customer' when in fact you are their 'product'.
However, nice try!
Re: (Score:2)
Here's where your point falls apart.
History has demonstrated that this is completely false. Union Carbide, Exxxon, BP, even the recent VW scandal in case you haven't been paying attention. Corporations know that you'll never stop buying from them after a scandal. You'll wait 2 weeks and forget, that's if you dont actively defend their wrongdoings to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
I have more trust for the government than I have for a benefits-dodger like Uber. The company shows hate by using contractors as a dodge against benefits as well as implying a second-tier status.
The government responds and answers to me without regard to stock ownership, while Uber responds primarily to some faceless individuals.
This, Uber aren't just dodging giving their workers their fair due, they're also dodging tax as they're not even registered for GST (sales tax in Oz, for the uninitiated).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So you remove their only way to make a living? (Score:5, Informative)
So you remove their only way to make a living?
They should be making their living legally, not illegally - the same would happen in any other circumstance where you are earning money through illegal means...
Re:So you remove their only way to make a living? (Score:4, Insightful)
They should be making their living legally, not illegally
I'm more concerned about whether people are making their living ethically. I'm still undecided as to which thing Uber represents. I'm fairly certain that the company itself is sleazy, but I still think the concept itself is sound and I hope they "win", where "win" == achieve substantial shift in the legal landscape that makes actual ride-sharing with cost-sharing feasible.
It's clear that taxi services do not adequately provide for the needs of the car-hiring public, and it's also clear that taxi services are entrenched interests in many markets. In some places, "taxis" are a little more loosely-defined than they are in e.g. NYC. But I also am against any law which effectively prevents people from using their property to make money in a capitalist system which requires that you have money to exist.
I am not against regulation, I am for fair and sensible regulation. Uber provides additional insurance for drivers while they are transporting a fare. If the additional miles that drivers put on their vehicles between (and during!) fares add up to anything, then they are already assessed additional insurance premiums to pay for that mileage. Drivers already pay taxes for vehicle registration which are at least in some cases tied to environmental impact and/or road wear. Though the degree to which that is accurately accounted for is somewhat lacking, the problems with it are not in the area of hire cars, but primarily in "over-the-road" (heavy) trucking. The vehicles which do the most damage should pay the lion's share of the ongoing maintenance costs, while major infrastructure which is assumed to have to be replaced on a schedule should come out of a fund for the purpose.
What are the other objections? People not getting paid a fair wage for their time, these people aren't working already and I don't see any solutions being offered. The taxi companies won't hire them anyway. Taxi driving is more dangerous for the driver than for passengers, so that one's out. What's the problem?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm more concerned about whether people are making their living ethically. I'm still undecided as to which thing Uber represents. I'm fairly certain that the company itself is sleazy, but I still think the concept itself is sound and I hope they "win", where "win" == achieve substantial shift in the legal landscape that makes actual ride-sharing with cost-sharing feasible.
Uber is run by Libertarian psychopaths (but I repeat myself), so "sleazy" would be a ringing endorsement. Their business model is build
Re: (Score:2)
Hire car regulations serve a useful purpose: driver qualifications and background checks, minimum vehicle standards, mandatory audio and video recording equipment for passenger *and driver* safety and accountability, ensuring appropriate insurance coverage, etc.
I think that the cellphone could provide for the camera requirements, and the normal regulatory process ought to handle the rest without any special investigation. Vehicles ought to be safety inspected based on miles traveled, Uber provides insurance while carrying a fare, and drivers are already carrying insurance adequate for the time when they're not doing that.
However, it's hard to see why this needs to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to monitor and enforce, and impossible to see any reason why anyone prepared to meet the standards should not be issued a hire car plate on application.
Well, there's a reason, but it's artificial scarcity which is a bit frustrating.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that the cellphone could provide for the camera requirements, and the normal regulatory process ought to handle the rest without any special investigation. Vehicles ought to be safety inspected based on miles traveled, Uber provides insurance while carrying a fare, and drivers are already carrying insurance adequate for the time when they're not doing that.
A mobile phone camera isn't adequate in terms of coverage. Small cameras are dirt cheap, so requiring a few inside a vehicle isn't even close to
Re: (Score:2)
Many states in Australia (and the US, and presumably every country) have little to no ongoing vehicle safety inspections.
Sure, but that's a separate problem from Uber, and one for which they should not be held responsible. California is actually one of those states! We care a whole lot about emissions, but if your vehicle might shed parts, so what? And this is where the most cars are! Vehicles should get safety inspections at certain mileage checkpoints where they statistically start to have problems if poorly maintained, whether they are used for commercial purposes or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that's a separate problem from Uber, and one for which they should not be held responsible.
It's not a separate problem if vehicles for hire are subject to different standards, and Uber - more accurately, people driving for Uber - are providing a vehicle-for-hire service.
The separate problem is whether or not all vehicles should be subject to regular mechanical checks, not whether Uber vehicles should be - the law is already clear on vehicle-for-hire standards.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a separate problem if vehicles for hire are subject to different standards
They shouldn't be.
The separate problem is whether or not all vehicles should be subject to regular mechanical checks
Wrong. If vehicles are a danger to others because they are being operated more, then vehicles should be inspected when they are operated more whether they are used for commercial purposes or not. It's wrong to place that burden on someone simply because they're engaging in economic activity.
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't be.
Why ? Equipment standards for selling services to others vs personal use differ in lots of places.
If vehicles are a danger to others because they are being operated more, then vehicles should be inspected when they are operated more whether they are used for commercial purposes or not. It's wrong to place that burden on someone simply because they're engaging in economic activity.
Someone providing a commercial service has a greater responsibility than someone engaging in personal use. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Someone providing a commercial service has a greater responsibility than someone engaging in personal use.
What? Why?
That's why restaurants need to meet standards that your kitchen at home does not.
Wrong. Restaurants need to meet standards that your home kitchen does not because so many people eat there. But whether you use your car for commercial purposes or not doesn't really change how many people you can kill with it. We make drivers of heavy vehicles or people who want to tow heavy loads get fancier driver's licenses because they can kill more people. A taxi is just a regular automobile, so it doesn't require a special driver's license. It requires a taxi license because protectionism.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Why?
Uh, because they've now got an implied responsibility to their customers ?
Wrong. Restaurants need to meet standards that your home kitchen does not because so many people eat there.
So a small corner cafe has lower hygiene requirements than a Sizzler ?
But whether you use your car for commercial purposes or not doesn't really change how many people you can kill with it.
Yes, it does.
We make drivers of heavy vehicles or people who want to tow heavy loads get fancier driver's licenses because they can
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Restaurants need to meet standards that your home kitchen does not because so many people eat there.
So a small corner cafe has lower hygiene requirements than a Sizzler ?
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it. The bar is not whether you're feeding many people or many many people, the bar is whether you're feeding many people. Try opening a soup kitchen and giving away food and see if you get inspected for health reasons. But nobody is going to inspect your kitchen at home unless you plan to feed the masses from it.
But whether you use your car for commercial purposes or not doesn't really change how many people you can kill with it.
Yes, it does.
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it. Making a vehicle commercial does not increase its passenge
Re: (Score:2)
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it. The bar is not whether you're feeding many people or many many people, the bar is whether you're feeding many people. Try opening a soup kitchen and giving away food and see if you get inspected for health reasons. But nobody is going to inspect your kitchen at home unless you plan to feed the masses from it.
You don't need a commercial kitchen certification to have a party.
You do need one if your business is providing food as a service
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a political bias, it's a social one. Against psychopaths.
Libertarianism is an extreme ideology. Easily summed up as "me want, fuck you".
Re: (Score:2)
You missed congestion, which was a major reason for the existing medallion systems. You can look at e.g. Panama City for Uber's end goal: everyone that wants to can drive a cab for a nominal fee. There are so many cars on the road you're often better off walking, but you can totally take a taxi if you want.
As many taxis as there are in Panama City, and I've been there so I know what you're talking about, they're still in the minority of vehicles. And the congestion isn't caused by too many taxis on the road no matter how you look at it, it's caused by abysmally poor traffic flow control exacerbated by overuse. Panama is having trouble supplying water to operate the canal, however, and if they don't get that sorted they're going to dry up and blow away right after it does, and that will calm right down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you remove their only way to make a living?
They should be making their living legally, not illegally - the same would happen in any other circumstance where you are earning money through illegal means...
This.
Driving a taxi is already a very low paying job in Oz., Uber is making it worse by transferring as many costs onto the driver as possible.
I'd like to see taxi laws and regulations changed to favour owner/drivers and allow minicabbing in Australia but Uber is doing everything they can to reinforce current regulations by demonstrating exactly why they should exist.
Ah so you're admitting they are in it for profit.. (Score:3, Insightful)
...as opposed to merely "sharing" their car? Then they need to adhere to taxi regulations.
In a true ride sharing, the only cost should be half the gas. Any more, and now you're in the taxi business.
Re: (Score:3)
An "illegal market" is the kind that arises naturally.
Re: (Score:2)
"You could use the same argument for a lot of drug dealers. "
And we do use exactly that argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure could, but dealers in illegal drugs are providing a service that no legal business can. Uber is providing a service that competes with a legal and more or less regulated type of business, but tries to avoid all the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, fire off the sarcasm. See if s/government/big corporation/ makes it any better.
If I have to choose between the benevolence of big corporations or the goverment, my choice would be easy as hell. One I can vote for/against, the other I have minimal influence over. But then again, I don't know where you live, I live in a democracy.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, fire off the sarcasm. See if s/government/big corporation/ makes it any better.
If I have to choose between the benevolence of big corporations or the goverment, my choice would be easy as hell. One I can vote for/against, the other I have minimal influence over. But then again, I don't know where you live, I live in a democracy.
Nice straw man.
Exxon can't take away your right to drive your own damn car if you give someone a ride for a fiver.
Re:Government knows best! (Score:5, Informative)
Google Pinkertons. Historically, companies can have you killed if they like. Absolutely they can take away your right to drive your car if they can have you killed.
Re: (Score:2)
A well known trait of the nominus A. cowardice is an inability to comprehend history, accept history, think logically, or understand reasonably abstraction or extrapolations. But, by all means, throw fecal matter at the wall to see what sticks.
Re:Cat and mouse game... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks, bro. They're reading this and you're proposing extortion, which they are totally fine with. You've just given them more weapons.
I'm rooting for the Aussies, because this is stupid. Every other industry I've seen 'disrupted' in this way has ended in a race to the bottom and ceasing to even be an industry anymore.
The only way I'll buy this 'Uber disruptiveness uber alles' foolishness is if you go full Star Trek and abolish money. Everyone, ride free everywhere you want to go, on Uber's well, there are no dimes anymore. With Uber's blessing!
Failing that, you're just a bunch of Somali pirates. The end game is either Trek utopia, or a mind-mangling dystopia of total surveillance and techno-feudalism, with nearly everybody on the planet as the serfs.
Assuming humans even count as people! Imagine if AI begins running corporations this way. Very quickly humans will be outclassed and the only people with money will be literally thinking corporations. And they don't need to drive anywhere, so goodbye Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
To a working musician, you are a Somali pirate. The internet disrupted commercial music composition and performance so much that it's now useless to get involved in unless you're a hobbyist. Pre-internet, if you knew what you were doing you could earn a living nearly as good as a skilled accountant, but those days are gone.
The same is happening to computer games thanks to disruptive technologies such as game development kits (think Unity and Unreal Engine) that democratize those forms of creation.
Again: cry
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who's never even spoken to a real musician.
To musicians and their fans, the record labels are robber barons. Taking pounds from the fans and giving pennies to the musicians.
Again your analogy is fail.
Uber is not a new and superior technology. Its just an illegal taxi service and that never turns out well. This is akin to people selling moonshine along side legitimate liquors, the difference
Re: (Score:1)
Step 6) Uber/Lyft loses, Government wins. (Score:2)
Australia's government would win this one. Combine due process for denying approved services with penalties for not adopting such frameworks, and the service gets dinged twice - once for the service, once for the blacklist.
That, and one can turn any untraceability against the service - where the enforcement effort yields no information about individual enforcers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Credit card processors and banks are very vulnerable in that respect. They would be quite able to create, fund and blend account numbers for obfuscating the actual source. At this point, usability has left town with business viability not far behind.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh. They completely forgot about the analog hole that we often speak about. Imagine the kind of person that thinks BTC is a secure method of exchanging currency in secret when there's a real world transaction. Or maybe they just think detectives are that stupid. Hint: They're not. Using crytocurrencies is not a solution (by any means) for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely it also takes money out of the US economy, even though they're based in the US. Globalization, you know. The money might live in Ireland or somewhere, like with Apple.
Australia has an answer: NO WAY. (Score:2)
They wouldn't even make to shore [ibtimes.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we saw an armed uprising against the government when it was revealed by a whistleblower that it's actively spying on its populace on basically all fronts with no oversight...
Wait, no, that didn't happen. Nobody gave a shit, and some of the populace was even defending this shit. Right. You keep your guns. It's a token showing how useless it is against a weak and complacent mind.
Re: (Score:2)
find the missing word(s) in the parent post...
Lol, would they be "I'm", "a", and "spammer"?
That's some serious word salad he's got goin' on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She's jeopardizing the car they need for his job? Maybe she should turn to drug dealing or prostitution or some other equally legal method of getting some extra money.
Re: (Score:2)
My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is driving for uber to get a little extra dosh because they need help putting food on the table? The have two kids and he makes shite wages. They lose the car he loses his job.
What amazing asshatery is this?
Why not repeat the sentence and substitue a few words:
My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is competing in illegal street races get a little extra dosh because they need help putting food on the table? The have two kids and he makes shite wages. They lose the car he loses his job. What amazing asshatery is this?
My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is driving a getaway car in a