Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

[debacle]

> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in today’s e-mail.

Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.

[gnu8]

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service.

The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.

[brokenmusic]

It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

[cpplinuxdude]

> "worries over the safety of consumers"

Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

[noelwelsh]

Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it.

Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.

[prostoalex]

So as a client, how would I currently pull the driver's criminal record (to check for DUIs and road rage incidents), insurance claims (to check for frequency of accidents), vehicle maintenance records (to ensure I'm not driven in something that's going to fall apart when we hit 65 mph) and proof of high liability insurance (to ensure my medical costs will be covered if an accident happens)?

[humanrebar]

If you want a light touch regulation from the government about this, you might want to figure out a simple way to let riders know about the licensing and bonding of the taxi and/or driver. And presuming that forces all taxis to have insurance, the information asymmetry problem is solved because the insurance company will have much more information about safety.

To be clear, there is certainly information asymmetry around the insurance and bonding levels of a cab. And it's way too expensive to investigate before getting in the cab. It would be cheaper to just hire a car service.

[briandear]

That would require personal responsibility-- we certainly can't promote that. It might lead to a snowball effect where people might demand control over their own lives in other areas, such as substances they choose to consume, education they choose to pursue (or not pursue) or people taking charge of their own health. We certainly can't allow that, the "people" are helpless and if left to their own devices, they might just starve or overdose on Sudafed.

[jfoster]

Of course they could. This is about revenue. Governments don't make nearly as much money from Uber as they do from taxis. There's the licensing factor, but there's also the way the service is taxed. UberX drivers pay personal income tax, but in most cases are probably not companies, so they probably don't pay company tax. Even Uber's cut of each ride probably isn't recorded as revenue of the local Uber entity, assuming Uber uses the same structure as most other large tech companies.

Long story short, governments are losing a lot of revenue due to Uber and (similarly) Airbnb. Consumers won't abide that as a reason for shutting Uber down, though, so they claim it's less safe. Taxi companies are happy to play along with that.

[wonjun]

The issue goes beyond the technology and law. It's more about the culture of place where Uber operates in. Making a living as a taxi driver in Seoul is different from how it is to do the same in San Francisco. Consumers have different expectations and are wary about different safety issues.

This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in developing the technology, but not in operations.

Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.

[Shizka]

> "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905) to people who provide information on Uber’s services. "

> "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]"

Can anyone clarify this for me?

I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly illogical to me if this is the case.

[ceejayoz]

There are lots of crimes in the US punishable by a year in prison or a fine of up to $1k. I suspect the fines are leftover from when $1k was significantly more money.

[Sharlin]

Presumably it's just about degrees of severity. If the case is decreed minor enough, the punishment is a fine up to $20.000; if it's more severe, the penalty is a prison sentence of some months up to 24 months in the most severe case.

[valarauca1]

Like US law you can be fined for a crime OR serve time (proper Boolean or: one, the other, both). The fine/prison limits are maximum, and decided on sentencing.

[jastr]

"...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..."

"The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..."

So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!

[saalweachter]

Do convicts in South Korea get a choice? I'm assuming the judge decrees a sentence and the convicted serve it, not that you're given the choice between going to jail and paying a fine.

[colinbartlett]

This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine or 6 months in prison." - that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.

[markburns]

This kind of discrepancy seems more like a penalty for being poor _and_ breaking the law.

[_r1eg]

To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't they just ban/fine the company instead?

[PMan74]

IANAL but (in Ireland) liability usually stops with the company unless the directors are shown to have acted outside company law.

Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do what we want" - in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.

[lclarkmichalek]

Depends heavily on the kind of law, and the kind of company. In the US, the main attraction of being a LLC is that the liability, for the most part, stops at the juridical person level, with natural persons being protected. Doesn't apply to this case, as SK law is probably radically different.

[theli0nheart]

Legally, maybe yes, maybe no. But morally? I say yes. Corporations are not autonomous blobs bereft of accountability.

[rokhayakebe]

FYI laws are very local.