[GauntletWizard]

Uber actively works against police trying to investigate these incidents, in ways that are almost actively malicious. They require warrants - not simply police inquiries, nor customer consent, but warrants issued by a judge, to turn over any data, even the identity of the driver. They purposely delete this data on an accelerated basis so that they can say "We don't know" - doing dirty tricks like making receipts that don't include enough information to identify drivers (and intentionally obfuscate). They have ordered and made it both official and unofficial policy for their agents to stall police inquiries until they hit those data deletion dates.

At some level, they are attempting to avoid bad press, but their methods go far beyond "Washing our hands of it, not my problem" and into "Trying to obfuscate and cover up crimes so that we can't be tied to them".

Source: Worked at Uber for about six months and quit in disgust.

None of this is to exonerate the NYT for their biased reporting, because the crime rates in conventional taxes are almost as bad, and closure rates are worse. It's an ugly industry that Uber could have cleaned up but decided the pragmatic approach was to spin doctor.

[cortesoft]

Don't we want companies to require warrants before sharing information, though? I don't want police being able to go to uber and find everyone who tooks rides near protests, for example. I want Uber to make police go through the proper channels to do things.

[GauntletWizard]

I don't want that either. I do want them to hand over driver information to the police when they have a case number and the customer's request. That is what the deliberately created a process to stall. That should not require a warrant - in fact, the process of getting a warrant should require the identity of whom they're looking for, provided by Uber as a mediating third party to prevent fishing expeditions. But they've proven to be an untrustworthy partner in this matter.

[motorest]

> I do want them to hand over driver information to the police when they have a case number and the customer's request.

Hold on. In the previous message you didn't mentioned "customer's request". You explicitly stated "customer's consent". This is different. "Customer's consent" means law enforcement demands access third party data without a warrant and asked customers to allow law enforcement to access data related to them. "Customer's request" is entirely different. It means it is the customer who is actively seeking their own information. They are not the same thing.

This switch is odd because last time I requested an Uber I firmly believe they show the driver's identification, car licensing plates, and share positioning and route with the customer. I just peeked into my Uber app and I have ride details that go back up to two years, which include the driver's name. From a layman's point of view, this is clearly enough data to get police to build up a case and put together a warrant. Why would law enforcement try to gather data on riders and drivers without the collaboration of riders?

Care to explain what exactly is missing?

[LorenPechtel]

I have no problem with requiring warrants. The police engage in far too many fishing operations.

But if they are obstructing beyond that I would think they would be asking for a lawsuit.