Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Since its recognizable logo first appeared on our phone screens in 2011, Uber has quickly risen to become ubiquitous in modern-day transportation, overtaking taxis in many cities. The ride-hailing company has cemented its status as a pillar of the sharing economy, while also battling countless lawsuits, protests, and government regulations over the years. The controversies reached a head in June 2017, when co-founder Travis Kalanick stepped down from his position as CEO. Read on for a glimpse into the events that led to Kalanick’s resignation.

Rise to Ride-Sharing Royalty

Uber’s growth as one of the world’s top ride-sharing companies was swift. It easily secured several rounds of funding, and became one of the most valuable startups worldwide. Uber has yet to go public, but is valued at $70 billion.

Uber’s impact on the market is cultural, as well as financial–the term “uberisation” has come to refer to other companies and industries that take after the company’s business model of eliminating the middleman and connecting customers directly to service providers. And, as The Economist writes, the word “uber” has become its own verb, like Facebook or Google.

Though competitors like Lyft have slowly built up steam, Uber still dominates the market. At the end of May, Uber’s U.S. market share was 77 percent, down from 84 percent earlier in the year. This decrease, experts say, is likely the effect of the seemingly endless controversies that have tainted Uber over its lifetime.

Early Disputes

Uber’s efforts to transform the transportation market have been met with resistance from the beginning. In a 2013 class-action lawsuit, a group of drivers sued Uber for its labor practices. The suit claims the drivers have been “misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance.” The company agreed to settle the suit for $100 million in 2016, but a federal judge denied the settlement and the case is still ongoing.

In the U.S. and worldwide, Uber has faced major scrutiny for operating in markets without adhering to local policies and procedures that regulate cabs. In 2014, several protests against the company broke out across Europe. These protests came to a head in 2015, when taxi drivers locked down the city of Paris, blocking roads, burning tires, and attacking drivers. The drivers considered Uber to be a form of “economic terrorism.”

“London Anti-Uber Taxi Protest” Courtesy David Holt : License (CC BY 2.0)

Uber is currently banned in Italy, Hungary, Denmark, and several other nations, in addition to some U.S. cities. In August 2016, Uber sold its presence in China to competitor Didi Chuxing, freeing it up to expand in other global markets. Today, the company operates in over 80 countries.

Over the years, Uber has come under fire for funneling millions into opposition research, both in plots to push out Lyft, its primary U.S. competitor, and to fight negative press coverage by “digging up dirt” on journalists. While these scandals have tarnished Uber’s image, 2017 has been an especially turbulent year for the company.

2017: A Year of Controversy

Uber’s controversies seemed to pile up at the beginning of 2017. When President Donald Trump’s travel ban was announced in January, protesters gathered at airports nationwide. While the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance ceased operations at JFK to participate in the protest, Uber continued picking up customers, fueling backlash from many who said the company was profiting from Islamophobia and deportation. The company later apologized, but not before the hashtag “#DeleteUber” began trending and rival company Lyft announced its support for the protesters, promising to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Toxic Culture

In February, Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a blog post documenting several incidents of sexual harassment during her time with the company. The post went viral and prompted Kalanick to hire former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the claims. In June, Holder presented the board with a report of the findings and series of recommendations to improve Uber’s workplace. One of the recommendations was to strip Kalanick of some of his power. Also in June, Uber fired 20 employees after an investigation unrelated to Holder’s revealed more evidence of bullying, harassment, and a “toxic” company culture.

Skirting the Rules

A few days after Fowler’s viral post was published, Uber was hit with a lawsuit from Waymo, a self-driving car offshoot of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Waymo alleged that Uber stole trade and patent secrets, focusing on actions by Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer. Levandowski was fired from Uber in May, and a new filing in June revealed that Kalanick knew Levandowksi had possession of data from Google long before the Waymo suit was filed.

In March, The New York Times reported on Uber’s use of a technology called Greyball, which it employed primarily outside of the U.S., allowing drivers to evade local authorities in markets where the ride-hailing service had been banned. The Department of Justice launched an investigation in response.

“Travis Kalanick” Courtesy of TechCrunch : Licence (CC BY 2.0)

Kalanick’s Tarnished Image

Kalanick, as an individual, faced even more scrutiny in late February after he was caught on video in a profanity-laden argument with an Uber driver over the company’s falling fares, which the driver said made him “bankrupt.” After the video surfaced online, Kalanick publicly apologized.

“To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement,” Kalanick wrote in a company-wide email. “I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up. This is the first time I’ve been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.”

Several years ago, Kalanick also came under fire for referring to his company as “Boob-er” in an highly-scrutinized GQ interview, saying that his desirability among women has increased since starting Uber.

Kalanick Resigns

A week before officially resigning, Kalanick announced an indefinite leave of absence from Uber leadership. This was in response to Holder’s recommendation that the company re-evaluate some of Kalanick’s responsibilities or distribute them among other members of leadership. In a memo to employees, Kalanick also said the leave of absence would give him time to grieve for his mother, who was killed in a boating accident weeks earlier.

Breaking: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick memo to employees on his leave of absence. Full text. @NPR pic.twitter.com/tCE4bZ2C0u

— Aarti Shahani (@aarti411) June 13, 2017

The temporary departure did not satisfy Uber’s investors, however. On June 20, two venture capitalists presented Kalanick with a list of demands, including his resignation. The letter was from five of Uber’s major investors, including Benchmark and the mutual fund giant Fidelity Investments. By the end of the day, his departure was made public.

Kalanick’s resignation isn’t the first indication of instability among the company’s top brass. Including the position of CEO, three of Uber’s eight leadership positions are currently vacant. Several other high-level positions and other leaders are also currently under scrutiny, and four out of seven board members, including the board’s only two women, are relatively new to the company.

What’s Next for Uber?

In spite of the recent controversies, Uber is continuing to expand and reshape its image. Uber added an in-app tipping function in June, much to the delight of drivers and customers, and the company’s self-driving projects are continuing to improve, even in the wake of the Waymo lawsuit. The company also streamlined its app to allow users to hail rides for others more easily, letting users call an Uber for a drunk friend or aging relative.

Unfortunately, the scandals haven’t stopped altogether. Less than 10 days after Kalanick’s resignation, civil rights activists filed suit against Uber in federal court for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act and the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act by not accommodating passengers with non-collapsible wheelchairs.

Conclusion

Even with the departure of Kalanick, the rest of this year could be make or break for Uber. Kalanick still retains a seat on Uber’s board, as well as voting rights in company decisions. Some think he could be leaving the door open to return to the helm in the future. Murmurs of Uber going public are also ongoing. Uber’s market share decrease and 2016 earnings loss could still hold up an IPO, but economists and experts think Kalanick’s resignation is a good sign for the company’s public trading potential. All eyes will remain on Uber to see if the ride-sharing giant can continue to grow, while transforming its leadership and company culture.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber in Turmoil: How Several Scandals Led to the Departure of its CEO appeared first on Law Street.

Dashcam Footage of Philando Castile Shooting Released

Police have released the dashcam video footage of the fatal shooting of Philando Castile by Officer Jeronimo Yanez last summer, and now many are even more stunned that the officer was recently acquitted. In the video, Yanez pulls Castile over to tell him his brake light is broken and asks for his driver’s license. But the polite conversation turns deadly in a matter of seconds, as Castile informs Yanez he has a gun in the car. “Don’t reach for it then,” Yanez says, while Castile assures him he isn’t trying to. Yanez is visibly nervous and keeps shouting at Castile to not reach for the gun as Castile and his girlfriend repeat that he isn’t reaching for it. But within seconds, Yanez fires seven times at Castile, while his girlfriend and her four-year-old daughter remain in the car.

The legal lynching of #PhilandoCastile. Video just released today.

An abomination. This officer is a murderer. Philando obeyed the law. pic.twitter.com/JNXA1XTlVk

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) June 20, 2017

At the trial, Yanez claimed he feared for his life, as he believed Castile was reaching for the gun. He also said he smelled marijuana and claimed that if someone is reckless enough to smoke in front of a child, he might also kill a cop. Understandably, not many people bought that explanation and are outraged that Yanez was acquitted by a jury.

I can’t help but mention the deafening SILENCE from the @NRA with regard to LEGAL GUN OWNER #PhilandoCastille being murdered by police.

— Leslie Mac (@LeslieMac) June 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Adding to its recent legal woes, Uber is facing a criminal probe from the Justice Department, according to people familiar with the investigation. The investigation, which concerns the ride sharing service’s controversial Greyball tracking tool, is reportedly in its early stages. A federal inquiry does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing; criminal charges being brought against Uber executives are also not a guarantee.

Since The New York Times uncovered its existence in March, Greyball has been a lightning rod of controversy. Greyball is a technology that allows Uber to present fake versions of its app to people it does not want in its cars–like city officials looking to reign in the company’s illegal practices–and track them using credit card data and other personal information. Uber claims it used the tool to protect its drivers in new markets, some of which the service operated in illegally, like Portland, Oregon.

After the Times’ report in March, an Uber spokesman said Greyball “denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers.”

But officials in cities like Portland, where Uber fought through legal hurdles in late 2014 before it began legally operating in the city in April 2015, say the tool was used for more nefarious reasons. According to Portland transportation officials, Uber intentionally skirted 16 city officials who were looking to shut-down the service because it was operating illegally at the time. Uber’s attorneys say the tool was used “exceedingly sparingly” in Portland; it had not been used since April 2015, they said.

Uber and its embattled chief executive, Travis Kalanick, has been embroiled in controversy for much of the year. From a spate of sexual assault accusations to a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, the $70 billion dollar behemoth is facing uncertainty as it enters Silicon Valley’s newest frontier: self-driving vehicles. In fact, Uber’s future in that field is increasingly in doubt. It was also recently hit with a lawsuit from Google’s autonomous car division, Waymo, which accused Uber of stealing its trade secrets.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Justice Opens Criminal Investigation into Uber’s Greyball appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, The New York Times published an extensive profile of Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, which recounted his and his company’s numerous scandals. A new allegation was nestled among the long list of known controversies. The report claimed Uber bought data from Slice Intelligence to track the brand allegiances of thousands of rideshare customers. Slice Intel owns an email unsubscriber called Unroll.me, which it used to collect Lyft receipts from users’ inboxes before selling them to Uber. While it does not appear any laws were broken, the revelation has reignited a debate around profit-driven data collection.

The report only mentions this scheme in passing, but the fleeting allegation was enough to upset Unroll.me users. Hours after the report was published, Unroll.me’s CEO, Jojo Hedaya, released a tone-deaf statement on the company’s website.

The statement is titled “We Can Do Better,” but by “we” he means “the user.” In the non-apology, Hedaya places blame on the consumer. After describing the public anger as “heartbreaking,” Hedaya immediately notes that each user has to agree to Unroll.me’s terms of use and the “plain-English Privacy Policy,” but that “most don’t take the time to thoroughly review them.”

The statement indicates Unroll.me has no intention of changing its ways because it’s how the company can “monetize [its] free service.” This rationale is misleading. Users may not pay money to use the service but, as long as Unroll.me sells user data, the service isn’t free. Unroll.me profits at the expense of each user’s privacy and third-party buyers, such as Uber, set the price.

Unroll.me claims all the data it sells is anonymized, but it is difficult for any user to know how well their data is protected. The Times report details the way in which Uber uses its app to “fingerprint” iPhones. With a tiny line of code, Uber is able to identify any iPhone regardless of whether the Uber app had been deleted from the phone or the phone had been erased and reset. Increasingly, tech companies that claim to value user data, value it as something to be sold, not as something to protect.

Nothing is free. Consumers cannot demand private companies provide unmonetized free services. However, companies that sell user data cannot claim to provide free services. While users of a service like Unroll.me may not hand over money, a transaction ultimately takes place.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unroll.me Sells Its Data to Uber: Is Your Free App Really Free? appeared first on Law Street.

Self-driving cars might soon become a common part of our lives–TechCrunch recently reported a study predicting that 25 percent of driving could be done by autonomous vehicles by the year 2030.

But the new technology is far from perfect, and has recently caused a number of incidents. In late March, a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a police motorcycle in Arizona, although the officer was able to jump off of the motorcycle before he was injured. And a self-driving Volvo being used by Uber ended up in another crash in Arizona around the same time. Over the summer, a Tesla driver died in a crash while the car was on autopilot (the driver was watching a Harry Potter movie at the time).  In September, one of Google’s self-driving vehicles ran a red light and collided with the passenger’s side of another vehicle.

So, when there isn’t a human steering the wheel, who takes the fall in court for accidents like these? Many lawyers and legal experts who have weighed in on the issue believe that the automobile manufacturers should be held liable.

However, not every case involving self-driving car crashes is the same. Recently, Michael I. Krauss, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, explored how different types of accidents and malfunctions for different types of vehicles should be handled under tort law in a piece for Forbes Magazine. Tort law involves civil cases in which one party has faced injury or damages and another party has been accused of being responsible for them.

According to Krauss, if an accident occurs because of a “manufacturing defect”–meaning the car does not operate as it was designed to operate–then the company that built it should be at fault. If there was an “informational defect”–meaning the car’s owner was not properly educated about how to operate it, and used it incorrectly as a result–then, Krauss writes, the car company should be liable only if it was negligent and failed to give sufficient instructions or warnings.

However, Krauss notes that “design defects” create a legal gray area. A design defect would occur if the choices the car has been programmed to lead the driver into an accident in response to an unforeseen issue. For example, Krauss says that if a moose jumps in front of the car, it could choose to hit the moose and potentially kill the driver or swerve onto the sidewalk and endanger pedestrians. He argues that decisions about liability in these scenarios should once again be based on whether or not the manufacturers were negligent or whether they made the best possible design choice. Such decisions could be left up to juries or decided beforehand by regulators, based on what a reasonable person might conclude, Krauss writes.

The Society of Auto Engineers has established six levels of driving automation, with level zero indicating that the driver has full control and level five indicating that the car is completely autonomous. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, told USA Today that a human driver is responsible for any crashes involving a vehicle ranked lower than level three. Smith added that because most accidents are caused by human error, which automatic vehicles aim to eliminate, a growing reliance on self-driving cars could mean fewer accidents and thus fewer legal disputes.

But the technology isn’t perfect, and can still make the same mistakes as humans–like speeding or running through red lights. Questions about who would take the blame for these violations remain unanswered.

Government regulation of self-driving cars could be changing under President Donald Trump’s White House. In September, former President Barack Obama’s administration released a set of standards for self-driving car manufacturers that would require them to conduct extensive safety assessments and provide the results to the federal government. Because legislation that addresses the vehicles varies for each state, the Department of Transportation released a centralized list of guidelines each state could adopt. But Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary in Trump’s Administration, is now reevaluating the old administration’s rules as companies that develop the vehicles like Google and Uber push back against the amount of information they would have to report. Chao has cited safety and jobs–because the technology would eliminate the need for occupations like truck drivers–as her main concerns as she considers the issue.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Gets into an Accident? appeared first on Law Street.

For the first three months of 2017, Uber has been mired in controversy. Many have attributed the strife to the company’s mistreatment of its employees, influenced by its toxic “bro” culture and iffy moral compass. While it’s easy to brush Uber’s woes off as growing pains for a burgeoning Silicon Valley tech company, its web controversies seem to point to bigger problems with leadership.

Compounding Controversies

Back in January, during the weekend of the first travel ban and successive protests, the company garnered harsh criticism for turning off its surge pricing for rides to New York’s JFK Airport. The opportunistic move prompted people to delete the app in favor of its competitor Lyft.

Shortly after that, Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, left President Donald Trump’s economic advisory council amidst criticism from the public and Uber’s own employees. The company was also sued by Google for allegedly stealing a key component in self-driving car technology. Then in late February, Kalanick was caught on video arguing with a driver over Uber’s fares.

Most recently, Uber initiated an internal investigation into sexual harassment and discrimination allegations lobbed at the company. The investigation was opened after Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, wrote a blog post outlining her disturbing experience at the company with an anonymous male executive who propositioned her for sex, prompting several female employees to also come forward.

Multiple company executives have since resigned. While Uber has reacted quickly to all of these controversies, the company’s responses have been either met with criticism or overshadowed by yet another controversy.

Uber CEO Seeks Help

Following the embarrassing squabble with one of his drivers, Kalanick admitted that he needs to “fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.” As a result, Uber announced that Kalanick was seeking to hire “leadership help.”

In early March, Uber announced that this “leadership help” would come in the form of a new COO. But the search for this position appears to have hit a snag with the news of president Jeff Jones’ resignation and a rumors of a “toxic” company culture, with Kalanick at the helm. Jones’ hiring was heavily publicized by Uber, and his departure undoubtedly adds complications to Uber’s future hiring plans.

In a statement released to Recode, who first broke the story of his departure, Jones said:

I joined Uber because of its Mission, and the challenge to build global capabilities that would help the company mature and thrive long-term.

It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business.

Dissatisfied Drivers and Changing the Company’s Culture

Aside from the resignations and sexual assault allegations from employees, Uber is also dealing with more crises regarding drivers’ dissatisfaction with wages. Uber drivers in some states are not allowed to accept tips and Uber’s attempt to strike down a Seattle law that allows its drivers to unionize proved fruitless.

Yesterday, four top Uber officials, all notably female, conducted a media call where they attempted to field questions about Uber’s shifting company culture. Conspicuously, Kalanick was not on the call, but Arianna Huffington, who sits on the company’s board of directors, was.

“Uber must change if it is to be as successful in the next decade as it has been in the last seven years,” Huffington said on the call. “Creating a great culture will be key to their future success. Going forward there can be no room at Uber for brilliant jerks and zero tolerance for anything but totally respectable behavior in an equitable workplace environment.”

Additionally, Huffington also reiterated the company’s faith in Kalnick’s leadership abilities, while underlining the fact that Uber’s culture had to change, and that new hires would be a focus for the company moving forward.

Uber executives have responded swiftly to each controversy; however, as we have seen with their clumsy and thwarted responses thus far, there’s no real indication that the company won’t stumble as it continues to move forward.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber’s Controversies Continue to Pile Up in 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Claims Obama Wiretapped His Phone

On Saturday, Donald Trump claimed, without stating any evidence, that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower throughout the month before the election. On Twitter, Trump called Obama a “Bad (or sick) guy!” He didn’t say where he got the information, but similar allegations circulated on a conservative radio show and Breitbart the day before. A spokesperson for Obama said the allegation was “simply false.” Then yesterday, the White House demanded a congressional inquiry into the matter. A statement from Sean Spicer called “reports” about it “very troubling,” but he said that the White House would make no further comment until after an investigation is concluded.

There are no credible public sources for this, only Trump’s assertions. And he seems not to have checked w 17 Intel agencies-just Breitbart https://t.co/XnP3NGNZpw

— Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) March 5, 2017

These are pretty serious allegations, and it’s important to note that a president doesn’t have the power to just order a wiretapping by himself–requests would normally have to go through the FBI and be approved by a judge. Later on Sunday, FBI Director James Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s claims, as he is implying that the FBI and Obama potentially broke the law. But the DOJ has been silent and now people are wondering if this is all just a way to divert our attention away from something else.

On @ThisWeekABC, Sen. Al Franken calls Pres. Trump’s wiretap assertion “a distraction.” https://t.co/I4naMV1Nfj pic.twitter.com/NaIRVI6Mew

— ABC News (@ABC) March 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The night Uber cars went live on the streets of Portland, Erich England failed to catch a ride. At the time, news reports concluded England failed because of excessive demand. It turns out that Uber, which entered Portland’s market illegally and without approval from the city, was deliberately steering cars away from England, a code inspector who was dispatched as part of a sting operation on the ridesharing service. How was Uber ensuring England, and other city officials, did not find themselves in an Uber vehicle? By using a tracking tool known as Greyball.

Four current and former Uber employees described the Greyball tool to the New York Times as such: when a prospective rider is determined to be a law enforcement authority of any kind, he or she would see the Uber app as any other customer would. But their app would be a fake; the triangular symbols on a map that indicates where Uber cars are located, for the officials, would be “ghost cars.” If by chance a real driver picked up an official, Uber would call the driver to tell them to end the ride.

Skirting city officials, and identifying them, is accomplished through a variety of techniques. In one, Uber would set up a “geofence,” essentially a digital perimeter, around buildings where officials worked. Within the “geofence,” the people who frequently opened and closed the Uber app were sometimes flagged–“Greyballed”–as city officials. When they attempted to hail an Uber, a fake app would replace the real one, and “ghost cars” would replace actual ones. Another technique would examine users’ credit card information to determine whether the card was tied to a city agency. Uber has Greyballed authorities in Boston, Paris, Las Vegas, Australia, China, Italy, and South Korea.

Initially, Greyballing was used as a way to protect drivers in foreign countries where their safety was endangered by angry taxi drivers. In 2015, for instance, taxi companies and workers in Paris attacked Uber drivers. Uber would use the Greyball technique, part of a larger program called VTOS, or “violation of terms of service,” by identifying potentially nefarious actors. When it realized its potential uses in skirting officials from cities where it was unwelcome, the employees said, Uber used Greyball in that capacity as well.

Uber released a statement denying any wrongdoing. “This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers,” a spokesman said.

With an estimated value of $70 billion and a ubiquitous presence in 70 countries, Uber seems like an implacable behemoth. But it has recently been embroiled in controversy, and many people are calling for its CEO, Travis Kalanick to step down. Earlier this week, Kalanick was videotaped by an Uber driver who he got caught in a heated exchange with. And last month, a former Uber engineer detailed sexual harassment she experienced while at the company. Her account was followed by other, similarly disturbing accounts.

Over the past few years, Uber has finagled its way into cities and markets around the world, at times without permission and without regulation. Last year, Uber lost the battle to continue its operations in China. But it remains a wealthy and powerful player in markets around the world. While Uber’s legal team authorized the use of Greyball, some in the company had qualms over the legality of the tool. As the company faces scrutiny from a number of angles, can it figure out a way to survive and continue its dominance?

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet Greyball: Uber’s Tool to Evade Officials Around the World appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Imagine you’re traveling to Washington D.C. for the weekend. You arrive at the airport and, instead of waiting in the extremely long cab line, order a Lyft. The Lyft takes you to your lodgings for the weekend–a room in a house that you found on Airbnb. When you get there, you’re hungry–after all it’s a long distance from your fictional location of origin. You order a sandwich from UberEats. While you eat, you miss your dog, but you remember that he’s in good hands with his Rover sitter. And you deserve this trip–you didn’t do all those extra tasks on TaskRabbit for nothing!

All of these companies–Lyft, Airbnb, Uber, Rover, TaskRabbit–are part of the sharing economy. Unthinkable just a decade ago, the sharing economy exploded seemingly overnight, creating new services for existing markets. And with those new services come new policy concerns, including regulation, competition with traditional services, and safety. Companies that are part of the sharing economy have plenty to lobby for and against. Read on to go behind-the-scenes with the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and follow the money behind lobbying for the sharing economy at the federal level.

Uber and Airbnb Go to Washington

Let’s look at two of the largest and most well-known sharing economy players to see how they’ve ended up in Washington–Uber and Airbnb. Founded in 2009 and 2008 respectively, Uber’s ridesharing and Airbnb’s roomsharing platforms quickly grew. But as they grew, so did some of their problems. Uber and Airbnb have both been battling regulations and concerns at local and state levels since their inception; take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas, or New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising. Both companies spend plenty of money fighting laws and regulations that could hurt their business models at the local and state levels. But, increasingly, they’ve started to set their sights on Washington D.C., and have begun lobbying Congress and federal agencies as well. That move makes sense–federal policy can have a significantly greater impact on both companies than that of one city or state. And as these companies look toward innovating for the future, they may very well need federal support.

Their efforts to lobby at the federal level have ramped up quickly. According to CRP, in 2013 Uber spent just $50,000 on lobbying; by 2016 it boosted its lobbying investment 2,600 percent, spending over $1.3 million to try to influence Congress and other federal agencies. Major tech companies that were once fledglings themselves also expanded their lobbying efforts significantly. For example, Google started lobbying in 2003 with a mere $80,000; in 2016, it spent $15.4 million, making it the behemoth in the industry. Amazon spent $11.4 million last year, and Microsoft, $8.7 million.

Airbnb has had a less precipitous ramp-up in lobbying, but has still seen a steady increase over the last few years. In 2012, Airbnb spent $195,000 on federal lobbying efforts, in 2016 that number had climbed to just under $500,000. But Airbnb isn’t trailing some of the largest hotel chains in the U.S. by much. For example, Marriott International, by many accounts the largest hotel company in the world, spent $670,000 on federal lobbying in 2016.

These numbers only provide a snapshot into the lobbying activity of these companies. For a full look at the numbers, check out CRP’s info on Uber and Airbnb. But here’s the important takeaway: Uber and Airbnb, despite being relatively young companies, are making significant moves to influence members of Congress, as well as federal agencies.

Join the Pool: Uber’s Lobbying Efforts 

So where did that money go? As a relative newcomer to the lobbying arena in Washington D.C., Uber hasn’t made any huge moves yet, but has rather mainly focused on smaller scale, attainable goals. While Uber has long sparred with taxi groups, as well as dealt with regulations that have forced it out of some cities and states, those kinds of skirmishes have largely happened at the state and local level. Nationally, Uber has had other priorities, including initiatives to clarify and modernize transportation regulations. For example, one lobbying accomplishment for Uber was getting language into the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the rideshare service to pick up and drop off passengers at military bases.

But Uber has also begun to spend some money on its future endeavors. Uber is already starting to lobby, for instance, on behalf of self-driving cars, which are largely viewed as the next level of innovation for the company. Uber joined a coalition, the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, that includes its competitor Lyft, as well as Ford, Volvo, and Google. Headed by David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the group aims to influence the Department of Transportation as it solidifies some guidelines for self-driving cars. To that end, it spent $30,000 on federal-level lobbying in 2016.

Knocking on Doors: Airbnb’s Lobbying Efforts

What about Airbnb’s lobbying efforts–where do those end up concentrated? Like Uber, Airbnb has largely focused on building a presence and relationships with lawmakers–not any big moves. Early in 2016, Airbnb hired former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, of Minnesota, to up its federal advocacy presence. Weber explained to The Hill: “The good news is, they are smart enough to get involved in this town before they really need anything. They’re trying to introduce themselves before there’s any problem to be dealt with on the federal level.” But Airbnb has been cagey, in its lobbying reports, about revealing its interests in Washington: it often fills in the space for “Specific lobbying issues” with vague phrases like “programs and policies affecting the sharing economy” or “regulatory issues.”

Some of Airbnb’s energy has been concentrated on fighting the hotel industry. For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been lobbying for more intense regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb; Airbnb has pushed back, publicly claiming the organization is anti-union and against minimum wage increases.

Conclusion

Uber and Airbnb have become such ubiquitous parts of our lives, despite the fact that they only sprung up a few years ago. But their moves in Washington, while recent, have been growing and are important to track. Because Uber, Airbnb, and other mainstays of the sharing economy like Lyft, Rover, and TaskRabbit, serve to disrupt their markets and provide existing services in new ways, they are particularly concerned about the effects certain federal regulations could have on their companies.

These companies have also started to increasingly make their political engagement known, especially in the wake of Trump’s presidential win. Right after Trump’s controversial executive order regarding travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, both Uber and Lyft fell into the political conversation. Uber came under fire after continuing to offer rides to JFK Airport despite a traffic strike, and #DeleteUber began trending as a result. In response, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. While federal lobbying matters, Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies have shown that they’re willing to up their political engagement in other ways too.

Clearly there are many reasons that both companies have begun spending more heavily on federal lobbying. As Uber and Airbnb become more visible on the lobbying circuit, it’s worth watching how they spend their influence investments.

Resources

Primary

OpenSecrets: Sharing is Caring: Uber, Airbnb, Lyft Invest in Washington

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies: Issues

OpenSecrets: Airbnb Inc

Additional

Business Insider: Uber says it has over 80% of the ride-hailing market in the U.S.

The Hill: Uber tripled its lobbying efforts in 2016

Computer World: Uber, Amazon, and Tesla Ramped Up Their U.S. Lobbying in 2016

Fortune: Major Self-Driving Car Lobbyist Talks Safety, Risk, and Tesla Autopilot

Verge: Google, Ford, and Uber just created a giant lobbying group for self-driving cars

Law Street Media: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

The Hill: Airbnb bolsters its DC lobbying force

Washington Post: Airbnb bulks up lobbying presence as lawmakers increase scrutiny of ‘sharing economy’

The Hill: Airbnb hits hotel lobby in message to Capitol Hill

Center for Responsive Politics

Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Our vision is for Americans, empowered by access to clear and unbiased information about money’s role in politics and policy, to use that knowledge to strengthen our democracy. Our mission is to produce and disseminate peerless data and analysis on money in politics to inform and engage Americans, champion transparency, and expose disproportionate or undue influence on public policy. The Center for Responsive Politics is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Follow the Money: The Sharing Economy Meets Washington appeared first on Law Street.

Uber leadership is scrambling to react this week to the sexual harassment allegations of former employee Susan J. Fowler, whose blog post on her experience at Uber has gone viral. Fowler describes how she was repeatedly sexually harassed and discriminated against yet every time she made a report to her managers or to human resources, she was dismissed. Fowler’s story throws a spotlight on sexism in an industry that loves to paint itself as forward thinking and inclusive, and her experience was not an isolated case–as Fowler’s blog gained traction, women from a range of companies began sharing their experiences with sexual harassment in the tech world.

Uber’s reputation already took a hit this winter when #deleteUber began to trend after Uber failed to condemn the Trump Administration’s immigration ban and continued sending cars to airports during a tax driver protest. After Fowler’s blog post, the deleting trend is back in full force. With rival Lyft picking up some of the client base that was once so loyal to Uber, the company’s reputation–and financial success–could begin to crumble.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has stated that he was disturbed and shocked by Fowler’s experience and within a matter of hours had hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a review of sexual harassment claims at the company. This will be Holder’s second venture into creating a more inclusive Silicon Valley brand. After Airbnb received widespread complaints of discrimination from hosts, Holder and Laura Murphy, former head of the ACLU, were hired to craft an anti-discrimination policy for the company. Airbnb now has hosts accept its anti-discrimination rules before they can become part of the Airbnb community, and while there have been arguments that the rules are not actually effective and that they don’t go far enough, the new rules were at least a step in the right direction. Holder has always been a staunch advocate for civil rights and was fully committed to women’s rights during his tenure as attorney general–but is he truly being asked to overhaul Uber’s culture or simply being brought on for publicity reasons?

There are doubts that Holder’s team will be able to defeat sexism in an industry where women are rarely given a seat at the table within a nation where sexual harassment has gone unpunished for decades and where the sitting president has bragged about assaulting women. Uber, like most companies across Silicon Valley and around the world, prioritizes results over respect for women in the workplace. Multiple interviews from current and former Uber employees have revealed that the work environment can be very hostile but that no one reports it out of fear of retaliation.

Now that Fowler’s case has shone a spotlight on a reality that we often ignore, Uber has at least taken steps to acknowledge the problem immediately, both by hiring Holder and by issuing a message that acknowledges Fowler’s case when users try to delete the app. However, over the coming weeks as media attention shifts, Uber may have minimal incentives to improve its sexual harassment policies. Uber is still an exciting company for any young developer to work at, and while Fowler’s case may give female programmers and engineers pause, there is little reason to think that many male candidates will choose not to work at Uber because of Fowler’s story.

The most effective boycott would be taking #deleteUber a step further–don’t work for Uber. If Uber takes a hit in its hiring pool, that is when it will truly feel the pressure to reform. It is the responsibility of young, qualified candidates who are working in Silicon Valley to turn down offers at companies that subscribe to a toxic work environment that devalues female voices. Holder will be working to create new policies and investigate past offenses, but his investigation will be futile if we continue to ignore the results and sign up for Uber just the same.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Eric Holder Can’t Save Silicon Valley Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Presidents Day! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hey, Donald Trump: What Exactly Happened in Sweden?

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump cited Sweden when discussing terrorism and immigration. “You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” he said. But there was no remarkable incident in Sweden the night before. The former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented on Twitter, asking, “What has he been smoking?”

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

The Swedish embassy said it asked the White House for an explanation, as no one in Sweden knew what the American president was talking about. And many on Twitter mocked POTUS’s comments, speculating that it could be IKEA-related:

Uncovered: the plans for the terrorist attack in #Sweden last night. RT because the fake news MSM wont report it! #swedenincident pic.twitter.com/EMh1FmsFac

— Liora Yukla (@LiogaYukla) February 19, 2017

On Sunday, Trump “explained” via Twitter that his statement was in reference to a Fox News segment that claimed that immigration has led to a dramatic increase in crime in Sweden. But today, Swedish police officers who were interviewed in the segment called Ami Horowitz, the man who interviewed them, a “madman” and said that they answered completely different questions than what Fox aired.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is not glitch-proof, as a businessman from Côte d’Azur in southern France learned last week. The man is suing San Francisco-based Uber for a whopping $48 million after the app let his wife know of his whereabouts, which allegedly caused his divorce.

The man says he used his wife’s iPhone to order a ride through Uber then signed out of the app. But what he didn’t know was that the app apparently kept sending notifications to the phone much later, even when he was logged out. Those notifications let his wife know when he was traveling and when he arrived at a destination.

It’s unclear whether or not she could also see his actual destination, but if he had told her that he was, say, working late or visiting his parents, she probably got suspicious if the app kept telling her he was riding in an Uber. According to French newspaper Le Figaro, it is also not known whether he actually did cheat, but he said that the notifications certainly led his wife to believe so. The couple is now divorced.

@Independent Well, he should have known better

— WeCanGetYouAnything (@WeCanGetYou) February 9, 2017

While it may be common sense to not use your partner’s phone if you’re up to no good, the man and his lawyer still blame Uber for everything. “My client was the victim of a bug in an application […] and the bug has caused him problems in his private life,” said his lawyer David-André Darmon. Uber declined to comment, as the company doesn’t comment on individual cases.

Le Figaro tested recreating the glitch, and confirmed that the app would keep sending notifications to a phone, even if the user had logged out. But it only worked with versions of the app that were older than the December 15 update and only on iPhones.

This is not the first time that Uber has been involved in a privacy issue. For example, at the end of last year, a court filing by the company’s former forensic investigator, Samuel “Ward” Spangenberg, revealed that the company’s lack of cyber security allowed employees to keep tabs on famous politicians, celebrities, and even exes.

Uber insisted that Spangenberg had old information and that the company’s strict policies prohibited employees from seeing such data. But then five former security professionals spoke up and largely confirmed Spangenberg’s account. Both cases raise concerns about Uber’s handle on its users’ private information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Man Sues Uber For $48 Million, Claims the App Caused His Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

After President Donald Trump’s refugee and travel ban caused chaos and protests at airports on Saturday, New York taxis refused to pick up passengers from JFK airport. But taxi competitor Uber took advantage of the situation, by continuing to offer rides and restricting surge prices–and is now being criticized as inappropriate and opportunistic. #DeleteUber has trended as a result.

The NY Taxi Workers Alliance announced yesterday evening that it was going to cease picking passengers up at the airport:

New York Taxi Workers Stand Up. Feeling proud. #Strike #NoBanNoWall #NoMuslimBan pic.twitter.com/4SDwpiBG81

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) January 29, 2017

About 30 minutes after the strike was announced, Uber tweeted out that it would still be operating and wouldn’t implement surge prices–a normal phenomenon when there’s a lot of demand.

Surge pricing has been turned off at #JFK Airport. This may result in longer wait times. Please be patient.

— Uber NYC (@Uber_NYC) January 29, 2017

Uber later declared that it didn’t intend to make a political statement. It read: “We’re sorry for any confusion about our earlier tweet—it was not meant to break up any strike. We wanted people to know they could use Uber to get to and from JFK at normal prices, especially tonight.” But, many people were still upset by Uber’s move, and the hashtag #DeleteUber shows why:

Last night I logged in to #deleteuber. Felt reluctance for a split second. then remembered the Montgomery Bus Boycott & felt ashamed. pic.twitter.com/D9WEtmkz6W

— wikipedia brown (@eveewing) January 29, 2017

1. Open the Uber app.
2. Tap ☰ > Tap Help> Account and Payment> Account Settings and Ratings> Delete my Uber Account.#deleteUber #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/RGtla4R5Tf

— Crescent (@TheLostAmelia) January 29, 2017

Dear @Uber_DC and @Uber, by prioritizing profits over human (and American) values you’ve lost a VIP super user. #DeleteUber #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/39arOnf8D7

— RobertMichaelMurray (@rmmageddon) January 29, 2017

Uber’s major competitor, Lyft, also drove to and from JFK last night. But this morning, Lyft released a statement, pledging its support to the protesters, and a promise to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. The cofounders, John Zimmer and Logan Green, wrote in a blog post:

This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #DeleteUber Trends After Company Continues Operating at JFK Airport appeared first on Law Street.

It’s the day before New Year’s Eve, and 2016 is about to be officially over. If you’re happy to see it go, check out this parody horror movie trailer someone made about the past year. This is the last RantCrush of 2016 but we’ll see you again on January 3, 2017. Happy New Year! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The U.S.-Russia Relationship Status: It’s Complicated

President Barack Obama was not happy when it became clear that Russia had in fact tampered with the U.S. election. Yesterday afternoon, he ordered 35 Russian diplomats, residing in Washington and San Francisco, to leave the country. He also imposed sanctions on Russia and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland. These actions were reportedly part of a series of consequences for the Russian election hacking and interference. But U.S. officials also blamed Russian harassment of American diplomats and officials in Moscow.

“The actions would amount to the strongest American response ever taken to a state-sponsored cyberattack.” https://t.co/TI9P1G7quj

— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) December 29, 2016

Then came reports that Russia would reciprocate by expelling the same number of American diplomats. But only hours after that proclamation, President Vladimir Putin said that he wouldn’t expel any American diplomats, which was a surprising announcement considering the diplomatic tradition of reciprocal punishment. He said that he wants to restore the Russian-American relationship once President-elect Donald Trump takes power. It remains to be seen what he actually means by that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

According to a court declaration from Uber’s former forensic investigator, some employees at the ride-sharing service tracked the locations of “high-profile politicians, celebrities and even personal acquaintances of Uber employees, including ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, and ex-spouses.” Samuel Ward Spangenberg, the former investigator suing Uber, said employees also spied on one particularly well-known celebrity: Beyoncé.

Spangenberg, 45, brought his case to a California court in October, and is suing Uber for age discrimination and whistleblower retaliation. He said he was fired 11 months after bringing a number of his concerns to the attention of top Uber executives. Spangenberg questioned more than the company’s illicit spying practices. In his declaration, he said:

As part of Uber’s incident response team, I would be called when governmental agencies raided Uber’s offices due to concerns regarding noncompliance with governmental regulations. In those instances, Uber would lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity so that law enforcement could not access Uber’s information. I would then be tasked with purchasing all new equipment for the office within the day, which I did when Uber’s Montreal office was raided.

According to Spangenberg, some Uber employees would use a feature known as “God View” to spy on the location of targeted riders. In 2014, BuzzFeed revealed the feature’s existence when one of its reporters fell victim to “God View”–actually used by the general manager of Uber New York. The feature, which has since been rebranded “Heaven View” allows employees to see the location of drivers and customers who request a ride. Drivers do not have access to this feature.

In a statement, Uber said it “continues to increase our security investments and many of these efforts, like our multi-factor authentication checks and bug bounty program, have been widely reported.” And in a memo sent to Uber employees on Monday, the company’s top security executive, John Flynn, said: “Like every fast-growing company, we haven’t always gotten everything perfect. But without the trust of our customers we have no business.” The company has also said that “fewer than 10” employees have been fired for abusing the “God View” tool. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Uber Employees Been Spying on Beyoncé? appeared first on Law Street.

Uber will start requiring its drivers to periodically snap selfies before being able to accept new rides. The company described its new move as a security measure that will prevent fraud and protect drivers’ accounts. But critics say it is just a sign that some drivers have not gone through background checks.

The tech company has long resisted more secure safety measures such as the use of fingerprints when running background checks, which are outsourced to a company called Checkr. Criticism has come from the fact that the prospective driver only has to enter all his personal information online before applying and doesn’t meet anyone from the company in real life before starting to pick up rides.

The absence of fingerprint checking leads to drivers swapping accounts with each other, according to David Sutton from a campaign run by the Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association. He said to the Verge:

This is Uber acknowledging drivers share their accounts and the company’s effort to reduce this practice. Despite intense criticism of Uber’s screening process, the company is admitting there are drivers who’ve never undergone any form of background check.

One driver admitted to this practice in 2014: if you don’t want to be screened before driving for Uber, you just put your information on another driver’s account who doesn’t want to work anymore and you’re all set.

Uber chief of security Joe Sullivan explained in a blog post how the new selfie method will work. Drivers first take a selfie in the Uber app.

We then use Microsoft’s Cognitive Services to instantly compare this photo to the one corresponding with the account on file. If the two photos don’t match, the account is temporarily blocked while we look into the situation.

This is what it looks like:

Here’s how Uber drivers now have to take a selfie, to improve safety. pic.twitter.com/TevDeydtEg

— Neal Augenstein (@AugensteinWTOP) September 23, 2016

But it sounds a little risky to trust the technology that much. And what if the app doesn’t recognize a driver, even if it’s the same person in both pictures? Sullivan admitted in the blog post that there had been cases of mismatching during the pilot testing of the app service. But he said that more than 99 percent of photos were matched correctly, and the ones that weren’t were due to blurry profile pictures on the drivers’ pages. The post stated:

Given that verification takes only a few seconds to complete, this feature proactively and efficiently builds more security into the app.

Throughout the years Uber drivers have been involved in drunken driving, murder, kidnapping, killings of pedestrians, assault and sexual assault. Time will tell if the selfie security will do anything about these problems.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Now Requires Drivers to Snap Selfies to Make Your Trip Safer appeared first on Law Street.

Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Two of the trendiest topics in tech and innovation–Uber and self-driving cars–are set to combine in Pittsburgh. Uber is aiming to place 100 self-driving cars in the city for use by Uber customers, although it’s important to note that for right now, the driverless cars will contain drivers who are prepared to take over in case that anything goes wrong, as well as co-pilots who will monitor and observe the car. While driverless cars have been talked about for a few years at this point, the company’s giant leap into actually offering self-driving Ubers to its customers–even at a test level–is a major step.

Uber has been working with about 50 researchers and engineers from Carnegie Mellon University’s robotics department to develop the system, and while it’s being tested out, Uber self-driving car rides will be free. The plan is that even when Uber begins to charge for the trips, they’ll still be cheaper than traditional rideshare prices. Additionally, rather than make its own self-driving cars, Uber is just attaching driverless capabilities to regular cars–specifically “100 modified Volvo XC90s outfitted with self-driving equipment.”

According to Bloomberg News, the set up will be:

For now, Uber’s test cars travel with safety drivers, as common sense and the law dictate. These professionally trained engineers sit with their fingertips on the wheel, ready to take control if the car encounters an unexpected obstacle. A co-pilot, in the front passenger seat, takes notes on a laptop, and everything that happens is recorded by cameras inside and outside the car so that any glitches can be ironed out. Each car is also equipped with a tablet computer in the back seat, designed to tell riders that they’re in an autonomous car and to explain what’s happening.

This is obviously still a work in progress in many ways. There are a lot of hurdles to get over before driverless cars actually become a realistic form of transportation–including legal concerns, as only a few states have authorized self-driving cars. But Uber’s taking a gutsy step, and next time you’re in Pittsburgh, you may end up in an Uber that’s a preview of the future of ridesharing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Self-Driving Ubers to Launch in Pittsburgh…Sort Of appeared first on Law Street.

Driverless cars are all the rage in the auto industry lately, as efforts have been underway for years to move away from the outmoded, human-driven gas guzzlers of the 1990s and early 2000s. The rosy image of the future of cars took a hit recently, however, when a man was killed while riding in his Tesla while on autopilot mode. This fatality immediately raised concerns over safety and the need for regulation that had been relatively quiet in the quest to go driverless. Read on to find out more about self-driving cars, how they are being regulated, and how close we are to a society where your car does the driving for you.

The History Behind Driverless Cars

While history has seen many driverless vehicles, from boats to rockets, driverless cars are typically something that is only seen in science fiction writing. Although the idea began drawing increasing interest around World War II, the concept was still in its infancy. Some actually believed the future wasn’t in driverless cars, but in safe highways that could guide cars like trains on a track. The movement for driverless cars really began to gain momentum with artificial intelligence enthusiasts during the 1960s who dreamed of developing driverless cars by the new millennium. Several prototypes were developed starting in the late 1970s, but the main challenge of developing a vehicle that could not only drive but react to conditions in real time remained elusive.

The industry got a boost when the U.S. military became involved in 2004, initiating a competition to develop driverless cars for use on the battlefield. Since then, driverless vehicles have popped up all over, including on farms, mines, and warehouses. The late 2000s and early 2010s also saw self-driving cars become a more plausible option for the average commuter, particularly when Google began its foray into the industry. Along with Google the other big name in the driverless car industry is currently Tesla Motors, while other many car companies have autonomous car projects of their own. The accompanying video looks at the history of driverless cars and their potential future:

Impact of Driverless Cars

Many carmakers are already fretting about the future of their industry. With the rise of affordable car-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, getting around without owning a car has become much easier for people who live in cities. This has led major car companies to invest in these services. Car companies are also investing in driverless cars, which could present another possible major disruption to the status quo of their industry.

Forecasts suggest that if and when driverless cars become widespread, likely sometime in the next couple decades, families will actually own fewer vehicles. This is due to the fact that a car that can operate by itself will be able to fulfill more functions with greater efficiency than traditional cars. Many may even forego ownership and use car sharing services instead.

It’s also important to consider driverless cars’ impact on the fusion of two industries. Namely, many of the largest and most well-known names in the auto and tech industry are teaming up to create the cars of tomorrow. The idea behind these collaborations is each industry is lending what it does best. In the case of the auto industry that is large scale production of vehicles that are safety and emissions compliant. For tech companies, that is developing the software, not only to allow for driverless cars but also for functions associated with computers or smartphones today.

Safety Concerns

The push toward driverless cars has continued even as the potential for danger remains high. While the accident in May that resulted in the death of the driver was the first fatality related to a self-driving car, it was certainly not the first accident. In fact, driverless cars are between two and five times as likely to get into accidents as cars with drivers, although that range depends on whether unreported accidents in regular cars are included. These numbers are slightly skewed by the small number of driverless cars compared to the large number of traditional cars. Nonetheless, while driverless cars are more likely to be in accidents, until the recent fatality, all the accidents that did occur only resulted in minor injuries because the driverless vehicles were always going slow at the time of the accident.

The following video details the first fatality in a driverless car:

Although the accident rate for driverless cars is higher, nearly all accidents between driverless cars and human drivers are the human’s fault. In fact, it was not until this year when the actions of a driverless car led to a traffic accident. This begs the question, why are driverless cars getting in more accidents when they are less likely to cause them in the first place? Ironically, the problem is that driverless cars are programmed first and foremost to always obey the laws of the road. However, in a busy intersection or highway, humans often disregard the rules and drive as necessary. The conservative approach that is taken by driverless cars actually increases their accident rate.

The inability to overcome the human element has caused the two leading companies in the driverless car industry, Google and Tesla, to pursue different approaches to the same goal. Based on observations made by Google engineers during an initial test phase–where drivers quickly trusted self-driving cars and stopped paying attention–Google decided to take a slower approach with the goal of creating a car that is 100 percent driverless. Conversely, Tesla embraces a notably different method. Tesla’s cars actually have many autonomous features already; however, the company instructs its drivers to keep their hands on the wheel while riding. Telsa argues that this approach will allow the company to collect enough data in order to improve its technology in a shorter timespan.

Perhaps the most significant safety issue, though, could affect cars with drivers and driverless models alike. This issue is the threat of hacking. With the amount of technology in modern cars and the many ways that they can connect to the internet, hackers are now able to take over a person’s vehicle.

The video below looks at the threat of car hacking:

Debate and Regulation

The high rate of accidents and the recent fatality has naturally intensified the debate over whether driverless cars are safe enough to traverse American roads. While autonomous features are commonly found in cars already, fully driverless cars are a work in progress. Getting driverless cars to the point where they are significantly safer than normal cars, however, could take hundreds of years of test driving. It becomes a question of how safe is safe enough and whether a crash in a driverless car is worse than a crash in a normal car.

While regulators are trying to step in and set up a framework for driverless cars, they too are uncertain about how to best regulate the industry. California, home to Google and most major tech companies, is currently the epicenter of the driverless car industry. In California, it is still illegal for driverless cars to operate on public roads without a licensed driver able to take the wheel at any moment. The main problem with these regulations, at least for the carmakers, is the requirement for cars have pedals and a steering wheel–features that driverless car makers like Google want to get rid of. California was actually the second state to authorize self-driving cars for testing and public use. The first state was Nevada, which has much looser regulations. Michigan has also authorized the use of driverless cars.

However, to avoid the varying state standards that have already popped up, many carmakers are anxious for national rules. Such rules may come sooner rather than later, as the Department of Transportation aimed to have a nationwide standard for regulations outlined within six months of its January announcement. In July, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced some progress on rulemaking and outlined steps going forward. However, many questions about regulation remain unanswered.

Conclusion

Driverless cars are a relatively new and exciting technology. Like any new advancement before them, there is an inherent risk involved, especially at the early stages. However, that risk has to be controlled in order to ensure driver safety.

While driverless cars excite the imagination, they still have a long way to go before they are adequately safe and regulated. This will not be an easy transition as it means people will have to embrace giving up control at 70 plus miles per hour. This also comes at a time when everything, including cars, is vulnerable to online attacks. Nevertheless, driverless vehicles appear to be an important next step in transportation technology. Even if they suffer several growing pains along the way, a car where everyone rides shotgun is likely the car of the future.

Resources

New York Times: Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says

Computer History Museum: Where to? A History of Autonomous Vehicles

Los Angeles Times: Tesla and Google are Both Driving Toward Autonomous Vehicles. Which is Taking the Better Route?

The Economist: The driverless, Car-Sharing Road Ahead

USA Today: Study: Self-driving cars have higher accident rate

Wired: Google’s Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash

Bloomberg Technology: Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw

Los Angeles Times: Is the World Ready for Driverless Cars? Are Driverless Cars ready for the World?

Governing: When Regulating Self-Driving Cars, Who’s at the Wheel?

Wired: The FBI Warns That Car Hacking Is a Real Risk

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Close are we to Driverless Cars? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump’s Twitter War Escalates

Today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC discussed some very important news: Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren’s Twitter war. Besides the fact that it’s getting very much out of hand, the hosts raised some real concerns that it reflects the state of American politics in the age of social media. Likening the debacle to cyberbullying, the hosts wondered what kind of awful example these “leaders of the free world” were setting for young people. They also wondered when the senator and GOP frontrunner were going to use their Twitter savvy to impact real change on actual issues instead of personal attacks. While many see Trump’s weekend jabs at Warren and the Clintons as weaknesses, many others see it as turbo fuel for getting him to the White House. Check out the full early morning rant below:

Uber & Lyft Vow to Leave Austin, Texas after Voters affirm regulations

Ride hailing companies Uber and Lyft lost their grip Saturday after Austin voters decided it would be best for the companies to continue to be regulated by the city’s ordinances instead of looser laws. This requires Uber and Lyft drivers to undergo more intense background checks, among other protocols. The two companies have seen worldwide success and popularity, but it did them no good in Austin, a presumably  lucrative market. Although they spent over $8 million on ads, voters didn’t go their way. To be very honest, after that crazy  driver in Kalamazoo, Michigan that killed six people, injured others, and claimed to be possessed by the app, many feel as though no amount of regulation will be quite enough.

Ivy League economist ethnically profiled and interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight

You may be wondering: How does one get interrogated for doing math on an American Airlines flight? Let alone a differential equation. Because when someone is doing that kind of math in their casual spare time it must be important and you shouldn’t question them. You should just stand back in awe, because most Americans actually suck at math.

But this puzzling scenario happened to Guido Menzio, a decorated Ivy league economist. Unfortunately for Menzio, a passenger next to him thought he was writing in Arabic and was, presumably, a terrorist. *Face palm* Instances of this kind are on the rise, and are often unfounded, as seen with the “Clock Kid” 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed, who was arrested for bringing a hand-made clock to school.

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore March for “Gun Sense”

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore are two Hollywood stars who were greatly affected by the news of the Sandy Hook shooting, a tragic event that left many young children dead and dozens parents mourning. This past weekend, the actresses joined hundreds of parents in support of Moms Demand Action, a group advocating gun control. Gun control has been a contentious topic of dispute for many years. But while many attribute pro-gun attitudes to conservatives and anti-gun to liberals, Moore has said she believes it should not be a partisan issue but rather a “safety” issue.

‘They stole my big brother’: violence turns child into champion for ‘gun sense’ https://t.co/Ji36LIfiMJ pic.twitter.com/V8DFjZwqu0

— Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) May 9, 2016

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman can be extradited to U.S. to face charges

Just in case there wasn’t enough El Chapo drama in your life, a Mexican judge ruled that El Chapo can be extradited to the U.S. to face charges for drug trafficking in accordance to a U.S.-Mexican extradition treaty. Although the legal side has been justified, the ministry has 20 days to authorize the extradition.

In the meantime, El Chapo has been moved to a less secure prison in Juarez, one of his cartel’s strongholds. An anonymous official admitted that there is concern that, while Guzman is being surveilled day and night in a secure wing of the prison, the Juarez prison is more lax than the one Guzman previously resided in. This move raised eyebrows for the DEA, and officials questioned the logic of moving him to a less secure prison where he potentially had the tools and people to help him escape. Prison break again, anyone?

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Do you need to order a quick ride in Austin, Texas? You may now be out of luck, or forced to call a cab, because both Uber and Lyft are pausing their operations in the city for now.

This big move comes after voters in the city rejected a ballot measure that would have loosened regulations on the kinds of services ridesharing companies provide. The regulations were adopted late last year after the legislation was passed by Austin’s City Council, but the ballot measure was posed to Austin’s voters this Saturday. While both Uber and Lyft lobbied hard for its passage and spent a combined $8 million plus in lobbying, 56 percent of Austin’s voters cast their ballots against the measure.

The Austin regulations essentially required Uber and Lyft to be treated more like taxis. One of the biggest points of contention was that they required that the companies run the fingerprints of the drivers they hire–Uber and Lyft pushed back against that regulation because both companies conduct their own internal background checks. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Austin also prohibits drivers from stopping in traffic lanes for passenger drop-offs and pickups, includes requirements for identifying vehicles for hire and imposes data reporting on the ride-hailing companies.

Austin is a major tech hub with a recent large influx of young people, so the fact that Uber and Lyft would rather give up that market than comply with the regulations makes quite a strong statement. Uber has additionally threatened to leave Houston, where similar regulations are under ongoing debate. Both companies also followed through on their threat in San Antonio, after that city made fingerprinting mandatory. Neither operated within San Antonio limits until the city made fingerprinting voluntary instead of required.

Statements from both companies echo these sentiments. Lyft’s spokesperson Chelsea Wilson said:

Lyft and Austin are a perfect match and we want to stay in the city. Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ride-sharing to operate.

Uber’s Austin general manager, Chris Nakutis, talked a local news outlet and stated: “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin.”

Uber and Lyft are now in a game of chicken with Austin–and there’s really know way to tell who will swerve first.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber and Lyft Pull out of Austin After Voters Keep Strict Regulations in Place appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

Uber (and its competitors) have certainly disrupted and innovated the transportation industry. But the reviews haven’t all been stellar–there have been multiple instances in which drivers have been accused of sexual assault. So, a new ride sharing company, Chariot for Women, is launching, with both women drivers and for women passengers. However, legal experts are concerned that the company may face legal challenges early on, on the grounds of discrimination.

The company was started by a former Uber driver named Michael Pelletz, who realized that drivers could sometimes be in vulnerable positions if a passenger gets aggressive. That, combined with security concerns from Uber and Lyft passengers, inspired the company. The website states:

The plan was perfect: As a women-owned company, Chariot for Women would use the safest practices to give the most secure and fun rideshare experience in the industry, driven by women, for women. Drivers are thoroughly background checked before they can ever accept one passenger request.

In addition to picking up women, the service will also pick up children under the age of 13, as well as transwomen. Chariot is also planning on using a feature that requires both the driver and passenger to confirm their identities with a code word when beginning a ride.

All of these ideas sound like ostensibly good things. However, the company may run into issues, and gender discrimination lawsuits could cost the fledgling startup quite a bit. Massachusetts employment law specialist Joseph Sulman stated:

To limit employees to one gender, you have to have what the law calls a bona fide occupational qualification. And that’s a really strict standard. The law’s really tough on that. For gender, it’s not enough to say, ‘we really just want to have a female here because our customers prefer that to feel safer.

However, Chariot’s founders seem ready to take on the legal challenge head on. Pelletz stated:

We want to show there’s inequality in safety in our industry. We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there’s safety involved, there’s nothing wrong with providing a service for women.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chariot: A New Women-Only Ridesharing Company Could Have Legal Issues appeared first on Law Street.

The Uber driver who claimed responsibility for the shooting rampage in Kalamazoo, Michigan that left six people dead and two wounded is now blaming the app for his murderous spree.

Man charged with killing six in Kalamazoo shootings says Uber app made him do it https://t.co/DznSXCIMhD pic.twitter.com/MeNYgetOUd

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 14, 2016

Jason Dalton told investigators that he felt as if the app took him over “like artificial intelligence that can tap into you body,” according to police documents.

Dalton was working as an Uber driver when he allegedly began his shooting rampage. For hours, the married father of two is said to have fired upon pedestrians at random, stopping intermittently to pick up unsuspecting fares.

According to the arresting officer’s report, Dalton told investigators during a video interview shortly after the shootings that the Uber app made him “feel like a puppet”  and would “literally take over” his whole body.

At first he was reluctant to explain what had happened because he “[didn’t] want to come across as a crazy person.”

Dalton explained to investigators that all of his problems started after he opened the driver app. According to the report, when he would log into the app a symbol that resembled an Eastern Star would appear and a horned devil would pop up on his screen. When the symbol was black, the devil take over his body and give him assignments, but when the symbol turned from black to red he would regain control.

The report reads,

Dalton explained how you can drive over 100mph and go through stop signs and you can just get places.

[…]

It starts out that you have to follow the navigation, but it gets to the point where you don’t have to drive at all, the car just goes.

Dalton also told investigators that he was seeing himself from outside of his body.

Police have stated that Dalton has no prior history of mental illness. However, earlier this month he was ordered to undergo a mental competency exam to determine whether or not he is fit to stand trial.

If found competent he faces charges for murder and attempted murder in the multiple shootings that occurred outside of an apartment complex, a restaurant, and at a car lot.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kalamazoo Shooter Claims Uber App Possessed Him to Shoot People appeared first on Law Street.

For most alcohol appreciating 20-somethings, nothing is worse than going out and getting drunk, and then waking up the next day to realize you vomited everywhere. However, there’s a special kind of low reserved for when you realize said vomiting took place in your Uber ride home, and you have a $200 cleaning bill to pay.

But before you reluctantly fork over your hard earned money to the “puke police,” take a second and ask yourself is that really your vomit? As chances would have it, it might not be.

According to the Gothamist, a Manhattan art director and avid Uber user by the name of Meredith Mandel woke up one morning and checked her Paypal account to find the extra charge tacked on to her $19 Uber fare from the night before. The driver even attached photo evidence of the alleged barf to back up his claim. Problem is, Mandel claims she’d only had two glasses of wine that night and knows for a fact that neither she, nor her riding mates, vomited in the car.

Warning picture of gross vomit (that’s probably fake) below:

Charged $200 after Uber driver ‘created fake vomit pictures’, claims passenger https://t.co/Y1mfqMjTLe pic.twitter.com/6NfQqtoSLh

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) March 3, 2016

Mandel chose to disable her Paypal account while she tried to dispute the charge, but realized her account needed to be active in order to receive a refund. But when she re-enabled the account she found a second $200 charge pending from Uber, and her driver “Muhammad” miraculously was unable to be reached.

After going back-and-forth with a customer service representative to contest the charge, she was made aware of the fact that the cleaning fee goes entirely to the driver. It was at that moment that she realized she was being scammed. Based on the photos, she told the Gothamist that she had determined a few things.

One: at least one of the three photos appear to show portions of the car in the front seat. She says that she and her fellow passengers were confined to the back. Two: all of the purported puke seems to be confined to easily washed plastic surfaces, mainly floor mats and the plastic of the dashboard and a driver’s-side door. Three: there have been other reported instances of alleged Uber vomit scams, including two incidents in Tampa, Florida that got a driver fired, and another in Los Angeles. Four: when she uploaded the photos to a metadata scraping website, no time or date was attached to the photos (we repeated this process with files she provided and got the same results). And of course, she says neither she nor her companions were drunk.

Needless to say Mandel has sworn off Uber, and says she’s downloaded the N.Y. Taxi app and Lyft to help fill the void. She was never charged that second $200, and an Uber rep claims she will be refunded the cleaning charge. Still this is pretty shady, Uber.

Like Mandel stated above, this isn’t the first time Uber drivers have been accused of trying to take advantage of customers. In February a Washington D.C. man ordered an Uber and asked the driver to drive him one mile to his home, but fell asleep soon after getting into the car. When he woke up the driver had driven him around for more than two hours and had racked his bill up to $171.

After repeated negative stories in the press, including a homicidal Uber driver’s shooting spree in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Uber is definitely suffering from an image problem. The company has some serious room for improvement if it wants drunk partiers to continue to rely on it for “DD” services, so get it together Uber.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is That Your Vomit? Uber Drivers Accused of Fake Puke Pics Scam appeared first on Law Street.

The city of Kalamazoo, Michigan was terrorized Saturday night when a man, believed to be 45-year-old Jason Brian Dalton, went on a shooting spree for hours that left six people dead, and two wounded. Police have yet to pinpoint a motive that would explain why a married father of two would shoot people of different ages, genders, and ethnicities at random.

Jason Brian Dalton had no criminal record. Police are baffled as to why he may have killed: https://t.co/K8NypwUHJn pic.twitter.com/AgufCvcyDK

— CNN (@CNN) February 22, 2016

We do know that Dalton was operating as an Uber driver during the time of the murders, and even picked up fares in between shootings. In fact so much attention has been placed on Dalton’s profession that “Uber” is currently the main identifier being used in the media to describe him. Now the popular ride sharing app is facing scrutiny, as people question how its hiring practices failed to pinpoint Dalton as a possible liability.

But is Uber really to blame?

Uber regularly runs background checks on all prospective new drivers before allowing them to join its driver fleet. Third parties run each candidate’s name through databases and then flag anything suspicious. However, some say this system is less thorough than ones used by taxi and limo companies, which require candidates have their fingerprints taken to be submitted to law enforcement.

But even with fingerprint analysis, Dalton would have passed. According to Uber, Dalton passed all of his background checks and police said he had no criminal history. Another surprising fact is that Dalton had a 4.7 out of 5 rating on the app, and received mostly positive feedback from people he picked up.

However, Uber did admit that it failed to act on a report that claimed Dalton was driving erratically and endangering passengers, about an hour before cops say he went on his shooting rampage.

According to the New York Post, a passenger by the name of Matt Mellen called the police and complained to Uber that he was forced to jump out Dalton’s car around 4:30pm because Dalton was “speeding, driving on lawns and medians, and running stop signs.”

Uber said it only takes action over allegations of “bad driving” after first speaking with the driver. Therefore Mellen’s complaint was filed away into a pile of similar ones, instead of indicating a possible imminent threat.

So to answer our question “is Uber to blame?” the answer is not exactly.

Uber followed its typical hiring procedures and background checks, and had no reason to suspect Dalton would carry out such horrific crimes. Uber also relied on feedback from more than 100 riders that were picked up by Dalton during his time with the company, most of which were positive. It did, however, drop the ball when it came to the complaint submitted the day of the shooting. But even if Uber had disciplined Dalton, we can’t say that would have prevented his violent attacks.

Uber definitely has room for improvement, but continuing to refer to Dalton as the “Uber driver that shot people,” will only continue to draw negative attention to the company that ultimately isn’t responsible for this man’s crimes.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Attention on Uber After Kalamazoo, Michigan Shooting Rampage appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever gotten one of those texts from Facebook, letting you know it’s the birthday of some person you probably haven’t talked to since high school? They can be incredibly annoying, and more importantly, some people who receive them don’t even remember consenting to those kinds of reminders from the social media giant. Well those pesky texts have now put Facebook on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit brought primarily by a Florida man who claims that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Colin Brickman claims that he received texts from Facebook, alerting him to a friend’s birthday. The text then invited him to write on his friend’s timeline or “reply with 1 to post ‘Happy Birthday!” While that sounds straightforward enough, Brickman is arguing that this action violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because it is a telemarketing message that could increase Facebook’s revenue by causing more people to interact with the site. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act requires that any messages of that nature can only be sent to people who have previously consented to receiving them. Currently, you can expressly opt out of the texts in the “settings” part of Facebook–Brickman argues that he did exactly that, but still received the unwanted message.

Brickman would like Facebook to stop sending the messages, and he would also like $1,500 for each message that he (and others who were affected) received. This is consistent with the law, which states that “consumers can seek $500 per violation or $1,500 if they can show the violation was willful.” Fortune also pointed out that there is precedent for deciding in favor of the message receivers in a case like this:

In the last year, Western Union  agreed to pay $8.5 million to resolve a class action over unsolicited text messages while Uber and Yahoo are currently in court over similar lawsuits. The Federal Communications Commission has also become more aggressive about text-based marketing, posting a notice last year to remind consumers that unauthorized texts are illegal except in the case of an emergency.

Brickman’s lawsuit is obviously still in its early stages, but while this all gets sorted out, keep an eye on your phone to see if you get any  unwanted birthday texts from Facebook. If you do, Facebook could end up paying for them, big time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Sued Over Annoying Birthday Texts appeared first on Law Street.

Companies such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and others are smashing the traditional models of business, making it easy for anyone with a smartphone or Internet access to instantly connect with other people to acquire and share goods and services. This trend has contributed to the creation of the “sharing economy” which is quickly becoming the norm in today’s society.

The sharing economy is formally defined as “an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by someone else.” On one hand, this new economy seems to offer flexibility and greater options to consumers, while allowing nearly anyone to participate and benefit; on the other, these companies are often subject to less regulation and scrutiny than traditional businesses.

Uber and Lyft’s taxi-like services jump-started a trend that has spread to start-ups in nearly every industry imaginable including clothing, alcohol, and even, as The Daily Show noted, chickens.

This new trend has the potential to be a major disruptor to the economy, as it has already impacted the way that business is done. The ability to rent nearly anything has made ownership much less desirable, especially for the millennial generation, who make up the majority of participants in this economy. When people have the ability to easily rent just about anything, there is much less need for people to make actual purchases. Additionally, many of the largest-growing companies today don’t directly provide the good or service they sell to their consumer base: Uber does not own the cars it drives, Airbnb does not own the properties it rents, and Grubhub does not make the food it delivers. They simply act as intermediaries to connect goods or services with consumers.

Despite its newfound dominance in the modern world of commerce, the sharing economy is still young and as it continues to expand at such a rapid pace, it may face some growing pains. Many companies are coming under fire for allegedly not obeying the laws set in place for traditional businesses to protect consumers and laborers. Additionally, the prevalent usage of contractors and temporary workers in their business models has led to many criticisms claiming that they lack respect for workers’ rights.

Read on for a look at the biggest issues facing the companies of today’s sharing economy.

Consumer Safety

A major issue facing these startups is whether consumers can trust these companies to provide the same level of safety as traditional businesses. Due to their peer-to-peer model, they are often not held to the same legal and regulatory standards put in place to protect consumers, leading to a litany of criticisms.

Airbnb

Airbnb, a company that allows people to go online and list or rent properties for short-term rental, is an alternative to traditional hotels for people traveling for leisure or business. The company is a major player in the hospitality industry, despite the fact that it doesn’t actually own any hotel properties of its own. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the company averages nearly 22 percent more guests per night than Hilton Worldwide.

However, critics are concerned about the safety procedures put in place by Airbnb. The service allows virtually anyone to put up a listing and become a host, and they do not routinely perform background checks on users. The company explains, however, that it has features in place to ensure safety, such as user reviews and a Verified ID process (in which identification is confirmed through a government-issued ID or social media profile). Still, the question remains, is that enough to ensure that both hosts and guests will have a safe experience?

This issue was put in a spotlight last month in a piece published by Matter, in which the author Zak Stone gave an account of his father’s death in a freak accident involving a rope swing in a Texas Airbnb rental. Stone’s piece is an extensive look at the legal and ethical controversies surrounding Airbnb, and includes stories such as one of a woman who died from carbon monoxide in a Taiwanese property. These stories highlight a large concern with the Airbnb business model, which is that the company cannot necessarily hold its listed properties to the same standard as a major hotel chain can with its properties. While hotels must operate under legal and regulatory standards, there are less restrictions on which properties can be posted. Whether user ratings are enough to ensure quality and safety for guests is an issue that can be debated.

Additionally, hosts cannot always be assured by the fact that their guests are trustworthy and will take care of their property. To address this, the company does offer Host Protection Insurance that protects against liability claims liability claims up to $1 million. However, anyone who chooses to become an Airbnb host would presumably be aware that they are agreeing to undertake a certain level of risk by letting a stranger stay in their property.

Uber and Lyft 

The safety concerns that plague Airbnb can also extend to ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft. In order to become a driver with one of these services, drivers must pass a background check, in addition to holding a driver’s license and meeting the minimum age of 21. Cars are not maintained by the companies, but must possess a certain level of insurance in order to operate. Despite this, there is a long list of incidents such as assaults, attempted kidnappings, and driver DUIs, among others. There are also allegations that the background checks are not extensive enough, and as such, they are more likely than taxi services to have such incidents take place.

However, taxi drivers have also been accused of similar offenses, so it seems that this issue is not unique to ride-sharing companies. A Cato Institute study found that ride-sharing companies were just as safe as traditional taxis, and also claimed that background checks for such companies often had stricter requirements than those for cabs in the U.S.’s biggest cities. Additionally, users of Uber and Lyft have the personal information of the driver on their phone, making it easier to report incidents (and the same is true if a driver is attacked by a passenger).

Labor Issues

Companies involved in the sharing economy have been held responsible for the emergence of the “gig economy,” which relies on contractors to make up the majority of its workforce. Because of this, they are not offered benefits such as health insurance and vacation. In fact, both Uber and Lyft are facing lawsuits for the “misclassification of drivers” in order to save on labor costs. Because they classify workers as contractors, federal law does not let them form unions to advocate for fairer treatment. Additionally, as noted earlier, drivers are required to use their own car, smartphone, and insurance in order to operate. This may affect the ability of lower-income workers to be able to participate in the first place.

Some may argue that Uber workers are not typically full-time drivers; they often hold other jobs and drive to make some extra money on the side. As such, do these companies need to be concerned about providing them with benefits? It is true that the vast majority of drivers fall in the 18-to-24 age group, and over half of drivers are part-timers. However, Uber and Lyft have been responsible for affecting the businesses of traditional taxi drivers who often do make their living off of their profession. The majority of New York taxi drivers are immigrants, with the median falling in the 50-54 age range. The disruption of car-sharing services on traditional taxi services has been immense, causing taxi drivers all over the world to protest Uber.

Another problem sharing economy startups bring to the forefront is whether or not their models will hinder future job growth. If apps and websites can eventually take over jobs done by people, what effects will this have on the future of the job market?

In a segment on his show, Bill Maher lamented that this sharing economy is a reflection of societal greed, and will lead to greater income inequality because it will decrease the number of jobs available. These concerns, however, are more so related to technological progress rather than directly the result of the sharing economy, so it seems unreasonable to blame the sharing economy. Hillary Clinton also cited the gig economy as dampening wage growth in the U.S., and “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the sharing economy has had a tremendous impact on the way that business is done, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many are still skeptical of this system because it is based on trust, and it is difficult to hold this trust without being ensured that your interests are protected by the law. The traditional legal system hasn’t caught up to these non-traditional ways of doing business, but as this business model becomes more and more prevalent, companies will need to continue to put regulations and protections in place for consumers and laborers.

Resources

Primary 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Consumer Intelligence Series-“The Sharing Economy”

Additional

Medium: Living and Dying on Airbnb

U.S. News and World Report: Who’s a Sharing Economy Worker?

The Seattle Times: The ‘Shared Economy’ is Further Hurting Workers’ Rights

The Guardian: Uber and the Lawlessness of ‘Sharing Economy’ Corporates

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an old saying–the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Two of Uber’s biggest rivals–Lyft and the Chinese ride-sharing company Didi Kuaidi have apparently taken that adage to heart, as they just announced they’re teaming up, seemingly in the hopes to take down the rideshare king–Uber.

The partnership between Lyft and Didi Kuaidi essentially means that users who have Lyft but not Didi Kuaidi downloaded can use their Lyft app to call a Didi Kuaidi car in a area where Lyft isn’t operating, and vice versa. By doing so, both services massively expanded their markets, and made it easier on their riders by combining the apps. This will mark Lyft’s first entry in the Chinese market, which is currently dominated by Didi Kuaidi. Didi Kuaidi claims to have control of roughly 80 percent of the private ridesharing market, and provides about three million rides each day. Moreover, this partnership isn’t the only interaction that Lyft and Didi Kuaidi have had–the Chinese company has invested heavily in Lyft. It contributed $100 million to Lyft’s most recent round of funding.

Why would Lyft and Didi Kuaidi want to get involved in each other’s markets? There’s one very simple explanation–they want to take Uber down. Uber already dominates Lyft in the U.S. While Didi Kuaidi is the prominent provider in China, the company is presumably nervous about Uber’s announcement that it plans to aggressively expand in China. During a round of fundraising this summer, Uber sent out a letter to investors that explained the opportunities available in the Chinese market. The letter stated:

Guangzhou, Hangzhou and Chengdu have all surpassed New York as our three largest cities on a trips basis. Impressively, Hangzhou and Chengdu have accomplished this feat in just 9 months, compared to New York which is 4 years old.

Hangzhou is now over 400x the size that New York was at its same age. 200,000 Hangzhou residents are becoming new UberChina riders every week!

While some critics think the numbers that Uber is claiming to have in China may be overblown, it’s clear that the company is making a big push. Given Didi Kuaidi’s move to partner with Lyft, it also doesn’t want to take the threat from Uber lying down.

Didi Kuaidi may be looking for other partners as well–rumors are floating that similar partnerships are in the works with ridesharing companies in India and Singapore. As Uber tries to break further into the international market, it may face an increasingly connected world of rivals.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rideshare Rivalry: Two of Uber’s Biggest Rivals Team Up appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no modern advancement in transportation has been so divisive as Uber. Some cities, states, and countries have welcomed the popular ride-sharing app with open arms, while others have demonized the company and tried to block its implementation. However, Uber may now have a new bargaining chip when it comes to convincing its critics that it’s actually a good thing. A study conducted in California recently found that the use of Uber helped to reduce drunk driving fatalities in the state.

Uber has actually been claiming that it can reduce drunk driving deaths for a while. For example, earlier this year, it sent out an email stating:

Since we launched uberX in California, drunk-driving crashes decreased by 60 per month for drivers under 30. That’s 1,800 crashes likely prevented over the past 2 ½ years.

The study on which it based that claim was co-authored with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and showed that drunk driving incidences have fallen in the California cities where Uber operates. However, critics claimed that the study only showed correlation, not necessarily causation, and claimed that Uber didn’t have enough evidence to make the claim.

However, the new study, conducted independently by researchers led by Brad Greenwood from Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, might get more credence. Essentially the findings of the paper were that cheap ride-sharing apps (not just Uber, but also its competitors like Lyft) lowered drunk driving incidences. This study may be better received because it attempted to show a causation rather than just a correlation. The researchers were able to test the impact that Uber had when it entered various markets, and estimate its potential future effects.

The conclusion about its future effects was interesting, and bodes well for Uber. The report stated:

Economically, results indicate that the entrance of Uber X results in a 3.6 percent – 5.6 percent decrease in the rate of motor vehicle homicides per quarter in the state of California. With more than 13k deaths occurring nationally each year due to alcohol related car crashes at a cost of 37 billion dollars, results indicate that a complete implementation of Uber X would create a public welfare net of over 1.3 billion to American taxpayers and save roughly 500 lives annually

Another interesting aspect of the study was that it discovered that only the cheap models of the apps seem to be successful at lowering the drunk driving rate. More expensive models like Uber Black don’t appear to make much of a difference.

Given some of the struggles that Uber–particularly the crowd sourced and cheaper UberX–has had getting into various markets, this promises to be a decent bargaining point. While Uber is obviously very far from being perfect, and still has some serious regulatory issues to work with, this could be a big plus in the argument to introduce Uber to new locales.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Uber Lower the Number of Drunk Driving Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

Does privacy even exist in the digital world these days? Many argue no, as more and more companies use elaborate software to track their customers’ precise locations, spending habits, facial features, and shopping preferences. Uber is just the latest company to come under fire for going “big brother” on its customers.

Uber recently announced a plan to track customers through the app, even if the user shuts it off, deletes it, and even turns off the GPS function. Last Monday, a formal complaint was filed against Uber by the nonprofit research group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Washington, DC. This was done in an effort to get the agency to prohibit the taxi-service company from instituting these new changes.

Uber will soon be able to track your location even if you exit the app and have GPS turned off http://t.co/RZUN2EaMej pic.twitter.com/StttNhjVqr

— Business Insider (@businessinsider) June 23, 2015

These new updates are expected to take effect around July 15th, a decision that Uber announced on May 28th, although not without some serious uproar.

If you are an Uber user, your every move will soon be able to be tracked; this revelation has left many customers on edge. What’s most appalling about this update is that it will let the company trace not only the whereabouts of its customers, but also everywhere that they’ve ever traveled while they’ve had the app on their phones. This is a major issue that people have with this update since the company will retain all the past location data of its consumers, with no indication when this information will be deleted, if ever.

Despite the backlash over this new policy, Uber stated that there is no support for these allegations made by EPIC. It claims that these changes in data collection are being done solely to help Uber optimize its services so that it can improve customer satisfaction. The company believes that it is completely necessary to track its customers’ every move in order to provide optimal services with shorter wait times. Uber does not see any problems with this new update, nor any truth in the many complaints against it. It also claims that its customers’ privacy is of its utmost concern.

Uber has a reputation for breaching the privacy of its customers, as this is not the first time that the app has been criticized by the public. It has encountered numerous lawsuits lately, such as when it was accused of tracking a customer without first receiving consent, cheating customers, and failing to meet local regulations in the United States.

Despite there being some extreme opposition to this change in the privacy policy of the app, there are some people who see the benefits of it. Some state that since this update has the potential to drastically change a customer’s experience so it is worth the hassle. This update would likely help Uber to figure out where most of its customers are so it can concentrate drivers in the most popular areas.

Uber remains one of the growing giants of the tech industry, it has been valued at $40 billion even though it was created only six years ago, and it continues to grow at absurd rates. For a company that is still so new, it is imperative for it to maintain its following and to keep the public’s interest. It currently provides millions of trips a day for users across the globe, and so the last thing Uber wants to do is upset its loyal customers.

Infringing on people’s privacy can be quite daunting, especially for those who have secrets to hide. Americans today are very conscious of their security, and so the thought of a company having access to your exact location at all times can seem frightening. Uber claims that it will give all customers the option of whether or not to report their location data back to the company, however, this choice will not be possible to disable on all phones.

Not only will this new update track customers’ locations, but it will also access users’ contact lists upon approval. Uber is doing this so that it can send promotions to riders’ friends and family, and to also implement its improved “split fare” feature. Communicating with a person’s contacts in such a manner might even be breaking a federal law, which states that a company can’t call or text people without first getting written permission.

It seems that Uber tried to keep the implications of this new update under the radar, although EPIC is not about to let it slide for violating its customers’ fundamental rights to privacy. The group is outraged at this new policy change, as it stated that it finds it to be a threat to people’s overall safety and privacy rights, it could create a substantial risk of harm for customers, and that it would “constitute an unfair and deceptive trade practice.”

Don’t people have the right to feel secure within their own devices? In an age where virtually anything can be found or performed online, people want to feel like their privacy is always being protected. There is currently no word as to whether the FTC will investigate the claims made by EPIC, although it might have to as this story continues to develop and gain publicity.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Users: Beware of Tracking Software appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a hot, new startup in town and it’s solving a problem that has long gone unanswered–how to get medical marijuana delivered to you. It’s called Eaze and it’s being promoted as Uber for weed. As more and more states legalize marijuana, and many more allow the substance to be used for medicinal purposes, the commercial industry is going to continue booming. Eaze wants a piece of that–and from the looks of it, so do Eaze’s many investors.

The San Francisco-based company has already gotten quite a bit of funding. In its series A funding round–essentially its first big push for venture capital money–it received a very impressive grand total of $10 million. One of the more prominent investors is Casa Verde Capital. For those of you for whom that doesn’t ring a bell, that’s the name of the venture capital fund run by Snoop Dogg. Although this was Eaze’s first major funding push, it also received $1.5 million at the beginning of last year to get started.

Calling Eaze the Uber of weed, or at least medical marijuana, seems pretty much spot on. Users can order the drug with the click of a button, and Eaze promises a ten minute or less turn-around time. The company connects already-existing dispensaries with customers, and has a fleet of drivers ready to transport the orders. Eaze also allows customers to look through what each dispensary offers, including lab results, in order to find a good match between customer and product.

The business certainly has some kinks to work out, but they seem to be relatively minor. TechCrunch’s Ryan Lawler tried it out over the weekend and pointed out that right now it only accepts cash, which can be viewed as inconvenience for anyone who operates mostly in plastic.

Eaze isn’t the only business trying to capitalize on medical marijuana, however. There are plenty of others that have similar ideas and business plans. Some of the more well known include Nestdrop, Meadow, Grassp, Dave, and Canary, each of which have slightly different business models, platforms, and markets.

Moreover, that’s only considering the weed delivery industry. Other pot-based startups have already begun to try to break off chunks of what will inevitably end up being a gigantic market. For example, Privateer Holdings, based in Seattle, recently raised $75 million in funding for its many endeavors in the marijuana market. Privateer Holdings already has a hold on the Canadian medical marijuana market, and plans on “branding” marijuana to sell in the United States. One of those brands will be “Marley Natural“–based on the late Bob Marley. The business will involve his family and estate.

Now that the tide really does seem to be turning both for medical and recreational weed, it seems like there’s no good reason for funders not to back some of these projects. After all, legal marijuana has been named the fastest growing industry in the United States. A company like Eaze has the potential to become massively profitable, given the convenience of having items delivered to your door, as well as its ability to prevent any sort of “high” driving. Snoop Dogg’s investment is probably a pretty good one, and with that kind of backing, we should expect to see Eaze expand with this growing market.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Snoop Dogg-Backed Startup Brings Weed to Your Door appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

“Stop it with your mouth, stop it with your ‘For what, sir, for what, sir,’ stop it with that bullsh*t” screams the police officer, while mocking the driver’s foreign accent. That is how a recent three and half minute viral video begins, where a plainclothes NYPD officer is seen screaming at an Uber driver in what is being called by many a xenophobic rant.

The video was uploaded to YouTube Monday by Sanjay Seth, who was one of the Uber driver’s passengers. In it, Officer Patrick Cherry, an NYPD detective assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, is seen berating the driver during a traffic stop yelling things like “I don’t know what f***ing planet you think you’re on right now” just before slamming the cab driver’s door walking back to his unmarked police car.

Seth explained his version of the events precipitating the verbal assault in the YouTube video’s description box writing:

In an unmarked car, the policeman was allegedly attempting to park without using his blinker at a green light. (His reverse lights weren’t on. Likely double parked without hazards on.) The Uber driver pulled around and gestured that he should use his blinker, casually and non-offensively, and kept driving us. The policeman aggressively pulls up behind us and this is what happens.

The city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board announced Wednesday that it would be working with the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau to investigate the detective, after receiving a formal complaint about the incident. The reason why the incident is being handled by the complaint board, rather than a criminal investigation, is because it was determined that Cherry committed no other wrongdoing besides being “discourteous,” according to a source for the New York Daily News. It’s currently unclear what kind of punishment, if any, will be doled out following the board’s findings.

According to the New York Daily News, a police source also said the detective was on his way to work after visiting Detective Harry Hill at NYU Langone Medical Center when the interaction occurred. Hill is in critical condition after going into cardiac arrest during a procedure on his elbow on Thursday. Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association, elaborated, telling the New York Daily News that Hill’s medical condition has been an emotional burden for the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a unit that combines NYPD and federal anti-terror investigators. Palladino said:

The past five days have been emotionally draining for the members of the JTTF dealing with their fellow detective’s health. Despite what some people think, cops have feelings, too.

Even if Detective Cherry was in the middle of dealing with his “feelings” that does not give him the right to verbally abuse anyone just because they do something that he doesn’t like. This abuse of power is completely unacceptable, especially when police as whole are still struggling to overcome a general public distrust after months of controversy involving several cases of discrimination. Instead of offering an excuse for the behavior, Cherry needs to do some serious apologizing, possibly paired with some anger management counseling.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Cop’s Xenophobic Rant at Uber Driver Caught on Tape appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

From terrorism to racist fraternities, last week’s top news stories covered a variety of unsavory topics. The number one most popular post of the week came from Law Street Crime Editor Kevin Rizzo who shed light on the ISIS’ goals and motivations; the number two story of the week, from Alexis Evans, examined the University of Oklahoma shutting down fraternity SAE after it engaged in offensive racist chants caught on video; and the third most popular story of the week, also from Evans, brought us a look into Uber’s latest effort to win back women. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria. Read full article here.

#2 University of Oklahoma Fraternity Shut Down After Racist Chant

University of Oklahoma’s President is giving chapter members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) exactly one day to get off the campus after a shocking video of the fraternity brothers chorusing a racist chant surfaced on social media. Read full article here.

#3 Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly?

A good example of how Uber has gotten a sexist rep is the feud between the company and Sarah Lacy, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of tech website PandoDaily. In October, Uber’s French office unveiled a sexist promotion with an app called “Avions de Chasse” that pairs Uber riders with “hot chick” drivers. Lacy responded with an oped piece on her site criticizing the company’s “Asshole culture,” writing that she deleted the app. She stated she was shocked that this company valued at $18 million “celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.”

That’s when Uber execs apparently retaliated in maybe the worst way possible. They hired spies. Yup, spies. Spies who allegedly attempted to dig up information on Lacy to discredit her. While nothing ever real came of it, there was a lot of public outcry against Uber.

USA Today reported that Emil Michael, senior vice president of the business, allegedly said at a dinner party that the company spends $1 million to conduct “oppo research” on journalists. That means digging for any information Uber can manipulate in order to discredit its journalist critics. After public backlash the company made its apologies on Twitter and dropped the promotion.

The controversy with Lacy wasn’t the only anti-female press for Uber. Uber founder Travis Kalanick was quoted referring to his company as “Boob-er” because of all the ladies he pulls due to its success. With comments like that it’s no wonder the company’s headquarters have been deemed a boyish clubhouse.

It only got worse for Uber in December when it was banned from New Delhi, India after a male Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger. Unfortunately, that’s not the only case of alleged Uber sexual assault. In Boston, an Uber driver was charged with sexual assault after inappropriately touching a female passenger while dropping her off in the North End neighborhood. With that in mind, hiring more female drivers could make female passengers feel safer while using the service. In NYC, the app SheRides has already created a business model based on the concept, with an all female fleet that it claims is tailored to the needs of women.

Currently women make up only about 14 percent of Uber’s 160,000 drivers in the U.S., according to the The Huffington Post. This new female hiring initiative would increase Uber’s driving force by more than seven times its current total. Its clear that Uber realizes that referring to itself as “Boob-er” and hiring spies to stalk female journalists wasn’t the best idea. This hiring initiative, however, is a good first step of many that Uber will need to take in order to rid itself of its negative “bro culture” rep.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday, we meet again. As you trudge into a new work week, we’ve got you covered with stories you might have missed last week. Anneliese Mahoney topped the list with all three of the week’s top stories. Number one implores you to stop posting the useless copyright status to your Facebook account — seriously, it’s a waste of your time. Number two recounts Sarah Palin’s latest controversy, this time with PETA over a picture she sent out to her social media followers; and number three is a look at the bumpy legal road ahead for Uber. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

Every now and then Facebook updates its policies. And immediately after that, I notice a series of statuses from my “friends” on Facebook. It’s a sort of notice alerting readers to the fact that the poster believes they have copyright over their own content. There are sometimes slight variations in wording, but that’s pretty much what these statuses look like every time. I’ve seen so many in my news feed over the last week that I thought it was time for an important PSA. This status means nothing. Read full article here.

#2 Sarah Palin vs. PETA: Welcome to the Overreaction Olympics

Sarah Palin has a unique place in my heart–after all, there are very few people who I can count on to continually surprise me with the weird scandals they manage to get themselves involved in. But she may have just outdone herself. The most recent Palin scandal started with a photo she posted to Facebook on New Years Day. Read full article here.

#3 Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits?

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy year, with a lot of technology developments, scandals, and big stories. Read on to check out the top 15 tech stories of 2014.

1. New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act?

Revenge porn was one of the hottest legal topics of 2014. “Revenge porn” most frequently occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass or degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly, but after the relationship goes sour, a jilted ex may post the pictures in a public forum. The practice disproportionately targets women, and can truly damage someone’s life. In March, a New York court dismissed a revenge porn case, signaling that it may have been time for the legislature to step in.

2. The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water

Snapchat, the messaging service that claims data instantly disappears upon receipt, found itself in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) based on violations of the company’s own privacy and security policies in May. The FTC complaint mainly focused on accusations that Snapchat misled their customers by promising certain security and privacy features. Snapchat eventually settled the FTC case, but remains on probation and will require monitoring.

3. Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before. This comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. One app that took the college and high school technology scene by storm this year was Yik Yak, which allows users to post anonymously to a regional “virtual bulletin board.” While the app was invented in presumably good fun, there are concerns that the anonymity enables cyberbullies.

4. New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras

The Department of Justice investigation into the New Orleans Police Department following Hurricane Katrina resulted in sweeping reforms of the department, including the requirement that patrol officers wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust of the citizens. They hope to guarantee police accountability, as well as provide a resource for officers when they write their reports and testify. While how exactly to deal with implementing police cameras remains a question, it will be interesting to see what happens in New Orleans as a result.

5. Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web

Another hot tech topic this year was the concept of “net neutrality.” There’s been a lot of back and forth, and each major player–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and our politicians, such as President Barack Obama, have their own takes. The legality of fast lanes is a tricky question–one that the FCC had to contend with this year.

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

Late this summer, a major leak of female celebrities’ nude photos hit the web. It was dubbed the “Fappening”–a form of crude wordplay. It included superstars such as Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, and Kate Upton. While some celebrities denied the validity of the photos and others embarked on conversations with the public, the whole scandal said a lot about the potentially false security of the internet, as well as the degrading way in which women are often treated on the web.

7. The Alibaba IPO: What Does Going Public Mean?

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba decided to go public this fall, and had the largest Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history. Alibaba’s success raised a lot of questions about what IPOs are, how they work, and what the various advantages and disadvantages are for companies. Alibaba’s extreme success is a sign that the stock market remained strong in 2014.

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, feminist cultural critic and video game developer, respectively, are two among a community of feminist gaming figures. They spoke out against misogyny and sexism in the gaming industry, and received threats, hatred, and truly vile responses. Sarkeesian had to cancel speaking appearances, and Wu was actually forced out of her home when her personal address was revealed. Sarkeesian and Wu were just a few of the players attacked in the #GamerGate trend that raged on late this fall.

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. There was a big debate this year in San Francisco, Airbnb’s home, over whether or not to pass a bill that would legalize the room-sharing network, with some caveats. It eventually passed, meaning that Airbnb will continue to operate in San Fran.

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. However, whether or not Snowden’s actions were legal is a completely different question.

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

Ridesharing rivals Lyft and Uber are going at in the courtroom as Lyft sues a former employee, now a current Uber exec, for stealing proprietary information. As the two leading companies in ridesharing–although Uber is quite a bit ahead of Lyft–there’s plenty of reason for the two to be competitive. The case in question regarded proprietary information that former Lyft executive Tyler VanderZaden may have taken with him when he moved from Lyft to Uber.

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

Bitcoin has grown into a major player in techno-currency, but what’s up next for the digital coin? Bitcoin is still trying to drag itself away from the perception that it’s used exclusively for criminal activities, and firmly establish a role in the mainstream. Regulations are also slowly starting to be put in place–it will be interesting to see Bitcoin’s future.

13. KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared over Ferguson Protests

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Anonymous was trying to prevent the KKK’s involvement in Ferguson-inspired protests, and took over many of the KKK’s social media accounts. The KKK responded with threats, and tensions continued to run high in Ferguson.

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

Aereo, once hailed as a game-changer in the cable industry,  filed for bankruptcy. Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright. Despite high hopes for the innovative idea, Aereo is now essentially dead in the water.

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

You know that Facebook copyright declaration you just posted? It’s useless. Seriously, it’s time to stop posting it. Every so often Facebook changes their terms and policies, and a bunch of people post a weird, incorrect disclaimer stating that they have copyright over their own content. The problem is that the notice does nothing, except confuse your Facebook friends who see it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Uber and Lyft are the two big names in the modern transportation industry. Both services, heavily technologically based, provide dependable transportation and serve as a foil to a traditional taxi. So, naturally, there’s plenty of room for feuding there. Case in point: Lyft is suing former COO Travis VanderZanden, who is now with Uber. Lyft is arguing that VanderZanden breached the confidentiality agreement he signed with Lyft, as well as failed his fiduciary duties.

VanderZanden left Lyft in August after purportedly feuding with company founders John Zimmer and Logan Green. Soon after, he got a job with Uber, Lyft’s most obvious rival.

Lyft is accusing VanderZanden of a few different types of inappropriate conduct after he left the company. It is arguing that he attempted to solicit Lyft employees to leave with him, and it claims that he took a bunch of confidential documents with him when he left. There are traces of certain proprietary documents being copied to VanderZanden’s personal Dropbox–an online account used for large document storage. Lyft claims the confidential documents included:

Historic and future financial information, strategic planning materials like marketing plans and product plans, customer lists and data, international growth documents, and private personnel information.

Even if VanderZanden in no way conveyed this sort of information to his new employers, Lyft argues that he’s still breaking the confidentiality agreement that he signed when he began working with them. The possession of the documents in a personal account alone breaches the document he signed. Uber claims that it doesn’t have any of Lyft’s proprietary information, but who’s to know if that’s true.

The ongoing feud between the two companies is certainly interesting though, as they have very similar roots. Lyft was founded in San Francisco in 2012; Uber was founded in San Francisco just three years before. Having used both services in Washington, D.C. multiple times, there are very few noticeable differences in terms of user experience, except for maybe the fact that Lyft drivers adorn their cars with bright pink mustaches, whereas Uber drivers go for significantly more subtle window stickers.

Despite the obvious similarities, Uber is pretty much trouncing Lyft in the market. Fortune discovered that in the last year, riders spent $26.4 million on Uber rides, in comparison to only $2.2 million reported by Lyft. Part of that could very well be because Lyft is a younger company, and while they’re growing quickly they’re certainly still behind Uber in the grand scheme of things. Uber is a global company, whereas Lyft is still working on expanding.

Given that the two companies really are fighting for the same market–smartphone wielding people who don’t want to have to bother with hailing a cab or fumbling with cash to pay for said cab–Lyft and Uber have every reason to compete. Like Apple and Samsung, on a much smaller scale, I think we can expect to see lawsuits, court cases, and allegations thrown around between the two companies for a while to come.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules appeared first on Law Street.

The days of hailing down a cab may become a distant memory for those with a smart phone in their hand. Uber has reinvented the ridesharing industry with its user-friendly application. Created in San Francisco in 2009, Uber now connects customers with available drivers in cities all around the world.

Although generally loved by customers, Uber has faced many obstacles since its launch, including competition and government intervention. It has been criticized for disregarding regulations and carrying poor or no insurance on its drivers. Read on for an examination of the policy and incidents that have shaped Uber into the company it is today.

Click the image for more detailed information.

What is Uber?

Quick and inexpensive transportation can be challenging to find when you live in a city. That’s where Uber comes in. When a customer opens up the application, she is greeted with a map displaying the cars for hire in the vicinity and the estimated wait time for pick up. Uber is especially attractive because the same quality of service transitions from day to night. Business people can order a car on the way to a meeting just as easily as someone can use it as a designated driver after a night out.

The process of ordering a car is incredibly simple:

• Download the app and enter your payment information
• Set pickup location
• Choose the type of car you want to ride in
• Tap request and track the reserved car’s location

The services provided by Uber are vast. Originally the company offered black cars (UberBLACK), which are luxury vehicles including Escalade SUVs, Lincoln Town Cars, and Mercedes. Now with the implementation of the low-cost option, UberX, the company is able to attract a wider breadth of the market.

UberX drivers use their own cars, carry insurance and a valid driver’s license, and pass a background and DMV check. UberBlack drivers must also have the commercial licenses required by the city in which they operate.

Does Uber Have a Competitor? Possibly.

Uber shares many similarities with the ridesharing company Lyft. Founded in San Francisco, Lyft operates in 60 cities in 2014. While Uber and Lyft provide almost identical services, Lyft has been met with great opposition in New York City. Under the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), Manhattan has stringent taxi regulations by which Uber abided. Lyft has not yielded to city and state regulations such as ensuring that all drivers are commercially licensed and that their vehicles are registered with the TLC. The attorney general’s office has filed suit and accused Lyft of eight violations, including using vehicles that are not registered with the TLC and hiring drivers who have not obtained the correct insurance and licensing.

In an interview with Buzzfeed, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declared in reference to Lyft evading the regulation:

“They’re allowed to try and we’re allowed to stop them.”

Lyft had planned on launching its peer-to-peer model, but because of the state’s officials and the TLC it postponed the launch. The company has agreed to work with the TLC to ensure that its cars and drivers are fully licensed.

Regulations

Are Drivers Insured?

The legality of Uber differs from city to city as each jurisdiction has different regulations pertaining to public transportation services. While taxi drivers have been subjected to these guidelines for years, Uber has been accused of bypassing many rules that govern taxi services.  Insurance of the Uber drivers has been a source of concern from legislators and the general public. To clear up any ambiguity, Uber announced that “all ridesharing transportation partners are covered by best-in-class commercial insurance coverage in the event of an accident.”

The insurance policies for UberX are:

• $1 million of liability coverage per incident
• $1 million of uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage per incident
• $50,000 of contingent comprehensive and collision insurance
• No fault coverage in certain states
• $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 of contingent coverage between trips

The other Uber services (UberSUV, UberBLACK, and uberTAXI) are “provided by commercially licensed and insured partners and drivers.”

Price Caps

One of the best cases made by Uber opponents is the company’s history of hiking up prices during times of high demand — a practice that sets apart Uber from traditional taxis. While taxis have a fixed fare, the price of Uber depends on the demand. Schneiderman criticized Uber for “charging as much as eight times its base rate during storms.” To avoid this manipulation, Uber and the Attorney General reached an agreement that during emergencies there will be a limit to peak pricing in New York. This agreement was the beginning of Uber’s new policy of limiting surge pricing nationwide during emergencies. In addition to limiting price increases, when an emergency causes a fare to be elevated the company plans on donating 20 percent of profits to the American Red Cross.

Negative Responses

Death of a Child

Tragedy struck a San Francisco family when a six-year-old girl was killed after being hit by an Uber driver. At the time of the accident the driver did not have a passenger in his car nor was he on the way to pick someone up, which is why Uber claims it should not be held accountable. The parents of the deceased have brought wrongful death suits against both Uber and the driver.

Alleged Abduction

After becoming intoxicated while partying at nightclubs in Los Angeles, a woman was put into an Uber by a valet. Instead of driving the woman home, the Uber driver allegedly kidnapped her and brought her to a hotel with the intent to sexually assault her. When the woman awoke, she found the driver shirtless lying next to her in bed and immediately left to call the police. Uber spokesperson Lane Kasselman stated after learning of the event that “the facts are unknown at this stage and it’s certainly unclear that this is an Uber-related incident, as the driver in question was not logged in, connected to or operating on the platform at the time… Nothing is more important to Uber than the safety of our riders.”   Even if Uber is not accountable for this crime, the incident tarnishes the brand.

Protests in Europe

America is not the only place where Uber is meeting resistance. Protests against the ridesharing company have gone across the Atlantic to European nations. In London, more than 10,000 cabdrivers participated in an hour-long protest. London has especially stringent regulations on its cab drivers. The process to get a license is rigorous and quite demanding: cab drivers must have knowledge of the London streets and be able take alternative routes without consulting a map. Because they have this extensive knowledge, they have an intimate understanding of the city and are regarded as experts.

When Uber arrived in London with drivers who bypassed the intense training that London-based drivers are subjected to, it should almost be expected that cab drivers would halt their services in protest. Mario Dalmedo, a cab driver in London, said:

“There’s room for everyone, but you have to obey the law.”

In addition to losing their jobs, drivers are concerned about how Uber is not following the rules and fails to pay the same level of taxes.

Uber maintains that it is providing competition in a market that has not been introduced to new services in a long time.

Virginia: Cease and Desist

In early 2014 the state of Virginia levied more than $35,000 in fines against Uber and Lyft for not having the proper permits in Northern Virginia. Following those charges, Richard D. Holcomb, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, sent Uber and Lyft cease and desist letters. Uber and Lyft have applied for brokers’ licenses to operate in Virginia since receiving the letter. Also, both companies have applied for temporary authority that would allow them to continue operations until they receive licenses.

Kaitlin Durkosh, Uber spokeswoman, stated that the company has been working “in good faith with the DMV to create a regulatory framework for ridesharing.”

Conclusion

Since its inception, Uber has been faced with many regulatory challenges; however, its accessibility and innovation has transformed the startup into a legitimate threat to the taxicab industry. With strong customer loyalty and growing financial backing, Uber appears to be sticking around for the long haul.

Resources

Primary

Uber: Eliminating Ridesharing Insurance Ambiguity

Uber: Insurance For UberX With Ridesharing

Additional

Forbes: Lyft Pips Uber by Launching 24 Cities in One Day

Slate: Why Uber and Lyft Are Not Interchangeable Services in New York

BuzzFeed: New York Attorney General, Aide Slam Lyft Co-Founder

The New York Times: Uber Reaches Deal With New York on Surge Pricing in Emergencies

Bloomberg: Uber Faces Challenges in NY With Lyft Debut, Price Caps

Washington Post: Competition from UberX, Lyft has D.C. Taxis Crying Foul

Lyft: Lyft New York Update

Business Insider: Virginia Commonwealth DMV Orders Uber and Lyft to Cease and Desist

Washington Post: Uber and Lyft Working on Becoming Legal in Virginia

NBC: Uber Driver Arrested on Kidnap With Sexual Intent Charge

The New York Times: Traffic Snarls in Europe as Taxi Drivers Protest Against Uber

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Uber: Not Your Typical Taxi appeared first on Law Street.