> Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees??

When the "harm" is enforcing the law (issuing tickets for illegal behavior), do you sincerely believe this?

If so, where's the line? Can my employer delay the cops at the front door while I head out the back over:

- Parking tickets?

- Drug use?

- Fraud?

- Theft?

- Assault?

- Murder?

How much interference with law enforcement do you believe employers should be allowed to get away with?

I heard of cases where police officers would request rides in places where it was legal to pick someone up but there was an increased chance of the driver making a mistake and doing something they can ticket.

If LEOs decide they want to waste everyone's time in what's basically entrapment, I've no problem with people wasting their time back.

Imagine they were doing that to a pizza place, ticketing delivery drivers? How bad would the pizza place be for letting the phone ring? For saying "Yeah, we'll get that right out to you..." and doing nothing?

(I don't know enough to say whether (or to what degree) the system was misapplied; it might well have been. Just that not all law enforcement use is automatically legitimate...)

> Doesn't Uber have a responsibility to protect itself and its drivers from fake riders looking to do harm even if they're government employees??

Sure, just like a mob boss has a responsibility to protect himself and his underlings.

If those local officials were issuing arbitrary fines and illegally impounding cars I'd agree with you. But they weren't. Those local officials were enforcing the laws of their jurisdictions, which Uber was trying to circumvent.

So let the local officials bring a case.

If a police officer pulls me over and finds that I was driving without a license, they aren't going to let me drive away and file a case the next day. They're going to impound my car. Following that same logic, if a jurisdiction requires licenses for commercial taxi drivers, then operating as a taxi without that license will result in your car being impounded. Why do you feel these should be treated differently?

What does this example scenario have to do with the federal government getting involved in taxi regulations?

Nothing. The comment I replied to was explicitly about local officials, not the federal government.

I would be fine with that, but there's no reason that the federal government shouldn't also bring a RICO case for obstruction of justice.

There are plenty of reasons that they shouldn't. You may not agree with the reasons but they exist.

Well, since you haven't stated what the reasons are, you aren't doing a very good job of convincing me that they exist.

One possible outcome of an FBI investigation is information being shared with local prosecutors on which they might being a case.

Nope. Lyft has to protect themselves from Uber drivers.