Gerald Montgomery, a 51-year-old UberX driver, has been arrested on suspicion of second-degree burglary. He was reportedly trying to break into the Denver home of a woman he had just driven to Denver International Airport, and was found carrying "burglar tools". Uber says that Montgomery had passed all background checks, and the man had no criminal history in Colorado according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records. Montgomery has been "deactivated" from the UberX platform and the Denver victim's fare was refunded.
The UberX platform requires drivers to operate their own vehicles and is less regulated than taxi services. Rides are covered by commercial insurance. An investigation [autoplay video] by NBC Los Angeles last year found that Uber has employed "screened" drivers with long-term felony records.
The company continues to attract unwanted attention around the globe; Uber's headquarters in Amsterdam has been raided twice this week, and an Uber employee has been arrested for obstructing the investigation. The investigators were looking for evidence that the company is continuing to operate UberPop, an urban ridesharing service deemed illegal by a Dutch court.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:14PM
I heard this on the drive home yesterday, on the Walton and Johnson show. A couple libertarian minded guys who like to discuss politics on air - and they are just a wee bit geeky at times. One of their favorite subjects, is just how DUMB crooks can be. This article gives a few more details - thanks for the links!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:19PM
I can't think of a company more at odds with regulators lately than Uber, so it's a pretty interesting topic.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:40PM
> One of their favorite subjects, is just how DUMB crooks can be.
Correction. Just how DUMB caught crooks can be.
You never hear about the smart ones.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:20PM
"I am not a crook."
=)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:52PM
How many crooks don't get caught? Alright, so a burglar gets away with 25 burglaries, for which he is never charged. Number 26 catches him on video, someone identifies him, and he's picked up. So, maybe he is less stupid than the burglar who gets caught the first time, but he is still pretty damned dumb.
I would wager that the smartest criminals only commit a few big crimes in their lifetime. They let all those petty crimes of opportunity pass by, because the odds really aren't with petty criminals.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:03PM
so a burglar gets away with 25 burglaries, for which he is never charged. Number 26 catches him on video, someone identifies him, and he's picked up. So, maybe he is less stupid than the burglar who gets caught the first time, but he is still pretty damned dumb.
Nothing in your manufactured example suggests the man with a 96% success rate is "pretty damned dumb."
Which gets to the unstated point of my previous post - your spin on events is all mood affiliation. It makes you feel good to believe that "bad" people are also dumb people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:10PM
Nothing in your manufactured example suggests the man with a 96% success rate is "pretty damned dumb."
Because if he was smart, he would've taken into account the possibility of cameras.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:27PM
or just skip the 26th time and go straight to the 27th.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:32PM
How many crooks don't get caught?
How the hell would anyone know that?
Yes, I understand that the question was rhetorical, but when you only sample one segment of the population, (those caught) you have no clue about the population as a whole.
Burglaries in general have one of the lowest clearance rate of any crimes according to the FBI. [fbi.gov] About 12.7 percent. Car theft is even less likely to be solved.
We have no clue who makes up that other 88%.
The FBI definition of "Clearance" of a crime takes into account making one arrest and thereby clearing 25 crimes. Yet 88% go un-cleared. So I would say there is a good chance that there are a significant percentage of crooks out there among that 88% that never get arrested.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @10:03PM
Same way they 'know' how many unreported rapes happen—buttmagic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:33AM
Most criminals don't get caught, only a very tiny percentage ever end up arrested or facing criminal charges. Something like 95% of drug users (sadly, drug use is a crime), 99.9% of police conspirators (criminal conspiracy + obstruction of justice), 100% of the traitors working public service (overthrowing the constitution [cornell.edu]), etc, break the law constantly and never see any kind of punishment.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:16PM
Correction. Just how DUMB caught crooks can be.
You never hear about the smart ones.
Sure you do [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:15PM
A taxi driver or airport shuttle driver could have done exactly the same thing, it's just that in this case it was an Uber driver. And?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:27PM
I was about to say exactly the same thing - I think perhaps it is 'cool' to bash Uber at the moment.
Where Uber does not comply with local laws or regulations - as is the case in the Dutch matter - then it is only right that they be called out. But this burglary could have been committed by anyone who had knowledge of that person's movements - a taxi driver, travel agent, airport staff, neighbour or whatever.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:28PM
I am wondering the same thing. How does paying an exhibortant license fee to the city or state going to help here? The drivers are not getting the huge fees traditional taxi services charge, so what would prevent one of them from doing the same thing?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:13PM
The difference is that taxi driver has a job. That shuttle driver has a job too. The Uber driver is self-employed, always in competition for rides with the next Uber driver that could just happen to be closer or cheaper or whatever. Taxi drivers have fixed fees precisely so there is a little bit more normalcy in their lives. Taxis have queues - something that does not happen with Uber. An Uber driver has it worse than the Taxi driver. Much worse.
In almost every situation, I would prefer a normal, regulated taxi over Uber precisely because of these reasons.
On the other hand, self-driving cars will make taxis obsolete. Maybe Uber is just trying to position themselves as "reliable taxi alternative" in the post-driver world.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:45PM
Yeah, I suppose that is a good point. I guess there are still scumbag taxi drivers though. I wonder how many times this kind of thing happens and we simply don't hear about it because Uber is the big news draw now.
Besides, the guy had to be a moron to break into a place without casing it for an extended period of time.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BasilBrush on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:30PM
I don't know what it's like where you are, but most Taxi drivers are effectively or actually self employed, whether traditional or Uber. They take the fares, then pay fees to the Taxi company. And they hope that the fares are sufficiently ahead of the fees to make a living.
With Uber the software decides which car will take a fare. How exactly is waiting in a queue or prowling the streets supposed to civilise the traditional taxi driver?
With Uber the software decides the fare. They are just as fixed for the driver as a traditional taxi. And less so than taxis without meters.
Pretty much on every point the reality is the opposite of what you imagine.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday April 06 2015, @01:56AM
I don't know what it's like where you are, but most Taxi drivers are effectively or actually self employed, whether traditional or Uber.
Where I live, most taxis licenses are owned by large taxi companies. Yes, there are independents too. But here is the difference.
1. taxis have agreed upon price, not random prices
2. supply of taxis is such that everyone can make a living
If taxi driver can't make a basic living driving their taxi, then they have to get money from another source. Therefore they are automatically more likely to turn to crime - there is only so many hours in a day. Give a man a normal wage, and it is much less likely they will step on the wrong side of the law (I know, general statement, but it applies to taxis as any other job).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @06:50PM
Where I live, most taxis licenses are owned by large taxi companies.
And are the taxi drivers paid hourly employees of the large taxi company? Not anyplace I've ever lived. The driver 'leases' the cab and license for their shift and are independent contractors. Unless you know it's 100% different from that, that's what you can assume is happening.
Yes, there are independents too. But here is the difference.
1. taxis have agreed upon price, not random prices
2. supply of taxis is such that everyone can make a living
In theory, yes. In practice, taxi drivers eat their downtime and the preset prices are no guarantee the driver will actually make a living.
If taxi driver can't make a basic living driving their taxi, then they have to get money from another source. Therefore they are automatically more likely to turn to crime - there is only so many hours in a day. Give a man a normal wage, and it is much less likely they will step on the wrong side of the law (I know, general statement, but it applies to taxis as any other job).
True. But "normal wage" has a lot of elasticity in it, and not all "normal wages" are "living wages."
(Ex-taxi driver, here... Absolutely loved it, absolutely couldn't make a sustainable living at it.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:00PM
Apparently your definition of "Job" is different than mine.
Who is behind the wheel at any given moment is subject to a great deal of hanky-panky in most jurisdictions. Many times you are lucky if the driver's picture on the hack licence bears any resemblance to the person at the wheel. If you ask about it, the pictured person is sick, and his brother, cousin, son, relative is filling in for them today.
The only thing that makes this unique was instead of passing the vacant address to someone else, the driver himself did the break-in. We have no idea how many times this occurs with taxi drivers who have accomplices.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:34PM
Another example of entrenched businesses not liking competition?
I took a taxi from Frankfurt airport last week, ridiculous queue, surley driver, Meter said €22.80 and the driver was unhappy when I demanded change.
The day later I left the hotel and went back to the airport. Booked uber, chap turned up with a spotless car, helped my bags into the trunk, friendly and cost €15.
In the UK the same thing applies, although not many uber drivers hang near stockport station, but when I get one I get a ride that's friendly, no need to pay cash, and half the price of a taxi. When I take a black cab from Manchester airport I get yelled at by the driver for not going far enough (3 miles to home).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:06PM
If anything Uber/Lyft will eventually force technology on taxi companies.
Probably not manners, or actual knowledge of the route, or the ability to speak the prevalent language, or a cab that doesn't smell like puke.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:09PM
I'd be happy to use a local minicab company if it didn't involve phoning up some dodgy outfit on the off chance there's someone there, having to pay cash, and not having a clue if or when the car will arrive.
In Manchester (and the rest of the UK), Uber is just another private hire company. With better technology. And better drivers, the cars and drivers are registered and insured with the local councils with a cursory background check, have enforced MOT checks etc.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:25PM
Well in the bulk of the US, Taxi regulations are there precisely to limit competition, not necessarily to uphold any standard of service.
Taxi regulation has long since been a Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org] situation.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:36PM
It's just happened where I live. The local big local taxi company finally has a booking and billing app.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wisnoskij on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:19PM
I can just imagine the ads now.
Use Uber today! We guaranty a crime free experience or your money Back!
If your Uber driver rapes, burglaries, kills, or otherwise assaults yourself or your property we will refund your ride fare, no questions asked!
Now for some testimonials.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:07PM
Perhaps a rough lesson in "nothing to hide". The passenger address became known to the driver and the being away information was also known. This presented a really useful opportunity. So perhaps it should be a good lesson in that regardless if you have something to hide or not. Your wide screen TV and other stuff might still be of interest..
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:12PM
Was wondering myself why she met the uber car at her own address, instead of walking to a street corner.
At the very least she needs a better door mat. [uncommongoods.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:20PM
Because it's expected that taxis provide a service for hire without bad side effects. If you have to walk. Then that service is diminished.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:52PM
Anytime I've ever booked a Taxi or Uber, I had them drop me at one of the houses for sale on one of the streets around me. There is always at least one within a street or two, at most a five minute walk. They tend to take off as soon as they're paid and I don't have to worry about giving them my address.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:03AM
Not recent, but looks like a related problem?
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3854/uk-taxi-rapes [gatestoneinstitute.org]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-170276/No-woman-safe-minicab-says-rape-judge.html [dailymail.co.uk]
> A judge issued an alarming warning to minicab passengers yesterday that they cannot expect to travel in safety.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 06 2015, @04:12PM
Not recent, but looks like a related problem?
" rel="url2html-24286">http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3854/uk-taxi-rapes
Every Uber I've got in the UK has private hire plates. From the reports there, and the names given, it seems there's a common theme. The problem there is that taxi and private hire drivers, who have had various checks (mainly the check that the car is roadworthy) attract.
That article is written specifically to get the old "(young) Muslim men are evil" line out there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-170276/No-woman-safe-minicab-says-rape-judge.html [dailymail.co.uk]
> A judge issued an alarming warning to minicab passengers yesterday that they cannot expect to travel in safety.
Daily mail == almost certainly incorrect.