[flagged]

ceejayoz 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure. But:

> Over three weeks, jurors weighed the harrowing personal account of Ms. Dean as well as testimony from Uber executives and thousands of pages of internal company documents, including some showing that Uber had flagged her ride as a higher risk for a serious safety incident moments before she was picked up.

Thus, civil liability. The rapist still goes down for the crime part.

▲

bombcar 14 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that Uber has a system that flags "RAPE LIKELY" and still picks "make the cash" is appalling.

▲

mc32 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I really would like to know what that means in actuality.

It sounds scandalous here but what does it mean on the ground?

Obviously diff interpretations and practice mean widely diverging truths on the ground with diverging responsibilities.

▲

ceejayoz 13 hours ago | parent [-]

https://www.courthousenews.com/in-sexual-assault-trial-uber-...

> When matching drivers with riders, Uber uses an AI-powered safety feature called the safety ride assistant dispatch, or SRAD. SRAD gives potential driver-rider matches a score from 0 to 1 based on potential for sexual assault and aims to make matches with the lowest risk. Risk factors include location and time of day, but SRAD also considers a driver’s weekend and nighttime request rate, scoring them as more risky because they may be more likely to be searching for easy victims.

> The SRAD score for Dean’s trip with Turay was 0.81, which was higher than the late-night average for the Phoenix area. Uber said it never informed Dean of its risk assessment. “We did not, nor would it be practical to provide that information to riders,” Sunny Wong, Uber’s director of applied science, said in a deposition played for the jury earlier in the day.

	▲	mc32 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s pretty wild. It absolutely makes sense that if you can, you would try to minimize rider (and driver) risk. I also agree I can’t see this ever being shown to a rider or driver. (that would expose them to other risk) That said, this system is a double edged sword. It allows you to provide safer services to your customers but it paradoxically also exposes you to another risk. So even though on the whole this system prevents many instances of violence, when it misses and it results in violence, it can come back to bite you. Implied is that if they didn’t have this system more violence on their services would happen, but because they don’t measure driver risk score, they wouldn’t be as liable.

▲

buellerbueller 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The killer was the bullet, not the person who held the gun.

▲

diggyhole 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Did you stretch before that reach?

	▲	buellerbueller 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, both of our arguments are ridiculous.