I disagree. Customers expecting this results in the awkward situation we're in today. If instead we train people to rely on themselves (and the police), many of these situations could be avoided (or, at least, resolved in a better way).
If Uber behaved correctly, they would've reported the case to the police with the identity of the driver. This process is much faster and allows for a quicker police investigation.
Any charge of employees doing criminal acts are reported by those who see them. If no one else at the company sees it, then it is left up to the alleged victim. They company does not want to be seen as attacking it's employees based in hearsay.
In Ubers case these aren't even employees so they are left carrying hearsays to the police against third parties.
From the article:
> It is expected, however, that serious crimes will be dealt with promptly, and reported directly to the police as well.
And
> At this point, the police attempted to investigate (pepper spray is an offensive weapon in the UK) but, the letter indicated, Uber refused to provide more information unless a formal request via the Data Protection Act was submitted.
But they report every crime if they're the victim:
> Uber are however proactive in reporting lower level document frauds to both the MPS and LTPH.
If I understood correctly, the victim did not contact the police, but that Uber contacted the police after the second assault, after which the scenario above happened. Also, why is it an issue for the police to make a formal request and why does this reflect negatively, instead of positively, on Uber?
Police are not asking for hidden confidential information here. They're asking Uber to obey the licensing conditions, which are to report criminal behaviour of their drivers.
If so, then essentially your history is an open book to any UK police departments.
If not, then your ride history is safe under the Data Protection Act.
DPA isn't some black magic. Medical providers are required to report abuses as well, but they don't send patient history or tell who else an employee has worked with or on unless there's a formal request.
Regardless, I hope that Uber comes into compliance with the ULL shortly, and their future behavior is not merely in line with the standard but better than that of other smaller minicab companies.
Except when they aren't: https://fymhotsauce.rocks/blogs/news/my-uber-driver-robbed-m...
That's strange. Everywhere I go in Europe and Scandinavia the taxi displays the photo ID card of the driver.
Usually stores have policy to notify manager so the manager can decide what to do. If Uber treat this kind of allegations as a normal support ticket, and nothing is done, well, fml. It better now come up with a better protocol so the support team has a manaul book to follow.
Uber is clearly competent to report criminal assaults. They report other things. And ignoring their apparent PR desires, it looks not just stupid and a caricature of bro-havior, but also absurd - why make not reporting sexual assault the hill you want to die on? If I were an investor... Oh wait, there are already lawsuits flying (indirectly) over this behavior.
Uber has a choice. Keep acting like multinational frat house, and likely be pecked to death by more actions like this, or accept that others have no obligation to hold them in the same extreme esteem they apparently hold themselves, and act like they want to run a business in the real world, in which laws exist.
Or, hey, go Galt already. Please.
On the other hand, I can't think of better example than Uber's toxic company cultute. Harassments gone to blackhole with HR....