I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.

This is how the vast majority of compliance regulations work. You the law abiding person don't want to file bank paperwork, or whatever, yet you do because some smaller portion of the population would fraudulently rob the population blind if we didn't.

▲

0x3f 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well yes, that is how many things work, but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good. With banking, for example, I'd much prefer a low-touch technological solution. You could argue fingerprinting _is_ a low-touch technological solution, although I'm not sure it's particularly good at enforcing who is who at driving time.

	▲	pixl97 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good Then step up and deeply think about the situation at hand and all it's ramifications. When you see Chesterton's Fence don't rip it out of the ground before you understand why it was built in the first place. Think of how you would make a system with the least problems (you can't solve all problems without infinite costs or infinite loss of freedom).