I don't quite understand the wording on the website. The article said the driver was acquitted; would a proper screening still have disqualified him, given his acquittal?
Quick disclaimer: clearly, given what you said, Uber needs to dramatically change how it operates in India, and thorough background checks are hugely important for a commercial transport service. I'm just wondering if it would have been enough to prevent this particular crime from happening.
If Uber didn't hire this driver, this crime could have been prevented.
Delhi laws require all cabs to have an onboard GPS: "The vehicle must be fitted with GPS/GPRS based tracking devises which must be in constant communication with the Central Control unit while the vehicles is on duty."
Uber didn't even have an on-board always on GPS, their only way to track is through mobile app; which the driver conveniently turned off.
Yeah, the crime would have been prevented if Uber hadn't hired the driver, and I hadn't known about the GPS, which is also key. My question is more "would Uber's background check process have caused the driver not to have been hired".
It seems common sense that a GPS unit, even one that cannot be disabled, would only be useful as evidence to follow up on after an alleged crime took place. I don't see any way to use it to prevent a crime happening in the first place.
Why is location that the rape took place relevant? What triggers the investigation is the allegation, not GPS data.
Look, I'm not trying to be dense here. But the idea that the crime would not have happened if Uber cars had undisableable GPS doesn't seem totally well thought out. After all, "you switched off your phone GPS between these times with someone in the car" is nearly as damning as "you pulled over into a quiet area and the car stopped for a while before it drove onwards".
Additionally, I thought Uber tracks drivers through the customers GPS? That's how they know the car took a longer than expected route? If they relied on the drivers app to self-report it'd only be a matter of time until someone made an app that fed false data to Uber and started selling it to bent cabbies.
I never made the argument "that the crime would not have happened if Uber cars had undisableable GPS". You were the one that claimed that it "would only be useful as evidence to follow up on after an alleged crime took place". I don't know whether it would be useful in that manner. I was simply pointing out that if it is useful in that way then it would act as a deterrent. In other words, I found the combination of the two sentences prior to my comment to be incorrect: that something could be used as follow up to a crime happening without affecting the likelihood of the crime happening. I was not commenting on the specifics.
No, uber tracks via the drivers GPS (at least in the US and UK). I have ordered Ubers for my family and friends; my phone wasn't heading towards the destination, but I could track where the car was on my phone. I find this a useful safety feature to make sure my family gets home.
Quick disclaimer: clearly, given what you said, Uber needs to dramatically change how it operates in India, and thorough background checks are hugely important for a commercial transport service. I'm just wondering if it would have been enough to prevent this particular crime from happening.