>Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls.

What's the point of fingerprinting when there's no way to ensure the person who registered for the account is the person actually driving?

▲

alistairSH 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

there's no way to ensure the person who registered for the account is the person actually driving

The drivers all have smart-phones - shouldn't it be possible to use the face-id feature to verify the driver is the driver-of-record on the account?

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What's the point of fingerprinting when there's no way to ensure the person who registered for the account is the person actually driving?

There are plenty of ways to do that verification, or at least make it more difficult. Prints then finger who fucked up.

▲

rwmj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The person allowing his fingerprints to be used will have a lot of difficult questions to answer when being interviewed by law enforcement.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Uber already requires driver licenses and (presumably) banking information for payouts. The drivers page for US implies the verification is done in-person as well. All of this makes it pretty easy for the police to identify the driver, and hard for the driver to wriggle out and claim his identity was stolen. I'm not sure how adding fingerprints helps here.

	▲	buellerbueller 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure either, but it is standard practice in many areas of employment. Want to be a teacher? You're gonna be fingerprinted. Perhaps it is a legacy of the days when different databases didn't talk to one another, i.e., drivers licensure and criminal conviction were siloed off from one another.