Uber, Lyft Drivers Accused of 92 Sexual Assaults this Summer

Uber, Lyft Drivers Accused of 92 Sexual Assaults this Summer

During the summer time of 2017, information tales reported 92 new allegations of sexual assault towards Uber and Lyft drivers.


Here’s why this distressing stat is essential.

Since Uber and Lyft started working, the firms have opposed the longstanding technique of driver screening: fingerprint-based legal background checks carried out by regulation enforcement.

Instead, Uber and Lyft have tried to persuade lawmakers they’ve a deal with on screening utilizing personal background checks and whiz-bang tech.

Wonderful, dazzling know-how. (This is what Uber needs you to concentrate on).

The drawback is this quantity, 92.

According to RAINN, two-thirds of sexual-assault victims don’t report the crime to the police.

And, clearly, not each sufferer’s story generates media protection.

Ergo this quantity, 92, represents a portion of the whole victims. Beyond this quantity are those that by no means reported their assaults to police, and the extra victims who did report however didn’t find yourself in information tales.

Charles Carroll is high-profile government for personal background examine firm, MorphoTrust USA, which handles delicate background checks for presidency businesses, together with TSA pre-checks. Carroll’s place as spokesperson for a personal background verify firm is very related as a result of Uber and Lyft have relied on private-background-check suppliers to persuade lawmakers to permit them to make use of personal name-based checks.

As a consultant of a personal supplier of background checks, Carroll is within the distinctive place of being exactly capable of examine name-based versus fingerprint checks.

Carroll lately revealed an opinion piece saying Uber’s new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, now has a chance to “re-think” the corporate’s prior resistance to fingerprint background checks.

Carroll lays out 4 key the reason why Uber and Lyft’s personal name-based background checks are inferior to fingerprint checks:

  • First, since name-based checks lack biometric identifiers (fingerprints) screeners can’t definitively tie the applicant to the background verify. They could be handed by fraud (pretend identify).
  • Second, as a result of names, addresses and delivery dates usually are not distinctive, this raises the likelihood of false negatives (candidates getting mistakenly cleared) and false positives (candidates mistakenly linked to a different’s document).
  • Third, as a result of the FBI’s database just isn’t accessed, there isn’t any true nationwide search carried out.
  • Fourth, Carroll notes that the universality of fingerprints permits for optimum information-sharing amongst law-enforcement businesses.


This summer time’s 92 alleged sexual assaults by Uber and Lyft drivers (and more than likely extra) belies Uber and Lyft’s claims that their name-based personal background checks can hold riders protected.

Definition of “belie”: to disprove, debunk or discredit.

Because of these reported assaults—and since this quantity will probably proceed to rise—Uber and Lyft ought to cease preventing lawmakers who’re making an attempt to guard riders by requiring extra rigorous fingerprint background checks carried out by authorities and regulation enforcement.

92: The technology-is-magic method has failed to guard passengers.

Soon sufficient, we’ll quickly see how the brand new Uber CEO responds to this coverage query.

Source link