Uber

[Davkaus]

59 minutes ago, ender4 said:

yep, its easier that way. 

actually to be fair, i have 3 levels of logins...   

1 username and password for all important websites - banks etc...

1 username and password for general websites that has my card details... amazon etc

 

I apologise to mods, as this is veering massively OT

These 2 are horrific and you really ought to do something about it. It's one thing to use a fairly generic set of credentials for VT, when the only risk is someone posting you like to be DUTWU, but I would strongly suggest a unique password for anything with your payments details.

You don't even need to remember them, with an application like Lastpass or Keepass, you can have passwords randomly generated, and automatically filled in, synced across your devices. The only password you'll ever have to remember is the one to login to your password manager.

[limpid]

Anything which is only username and password isn't adequate. You need multi-factor for everything.

[ender4]

yeah, i guess i should use better protection.

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

 

I apologise to mods, as this is veering massively OT

These 2 are horrific and you really ought to do something about it. It's one thing to use a fairly generic set of credentials for VT, when the only risk is someone posting you like to be DUTWU, but I would strongly suggest a unique password for anything with your payments details.

You don't even need to remember them, with an application like Lastpass or Keepass, you can have passwords randomly generated, and automatically filled in, synced across your devices. The only password you'll ever have to remember is the one to login to your password manager.

Of course the minor downside of a password manager is you're reliant on them being bomb proof

I use lastpass myself. And 2 factor on anything that supports it.

[Davkaus]

37 minutes ago, limpid said:

Anything which is only username and password isn't adequate. You need multi-factor for everything.

It does surprise me how many sites want my card details, but have less security than VT.

A lot of UK banks don't even support 2FA.

[bickster]

Just imagine if this was you. We forgot to triple your fare when you wanted a taxi, so we took the extra couple of hundred quid anyway without your consent.

oh and that route at the bottom is also shocking.

[Dr_Pangloss]

I always wondered about the actual legality of these retroactive fares. Presumably when you book an uber you are entering into a 'contract' with them for that particular service for a given quoted price. Are they not effectively breaking that contract when they retroactively juke up the fare after the transaction has been made? All well and good saying it's part of their T&C's but that doesn't make it right. 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I always wondered about the actual legality of these retroactive fares. Presumably when you book an uber you are entering into a 'contract' with them for that particular service for a given quoted price. Are they not effectively breaking that contract when they retroactively juke up the fare after the transaction has been made? All well and good saying it's part of their T&C's but that doesn't make it right. 

That’s my opinion too,  I’d also expect that is the correct legal opinion. Hiding that you will do this in the T&Cs is highly suspect

Cant happen if you don’t give your card details out freely.though, especially to a company as untrustworthy as Uber

[Dr_Pangloss]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

That’s my opinion too,  I’d also expect that is the correct legal opinion. Hiding that you will do this in the T&Cs is highly suspect

Cant happen if you don’t give your card details out freely.though, especially to a company as untrustworthy as Uber

I think if this happened to me I'd be phoning my bank and cancelling the payment under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Section 75 can apply when a company "misrepresents what it is selling", which is very clearly the case in the example above.  

[maqroll]

is lyft in england

Edited October 22, 2017 by maqroll

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, maqroll said:

is lyft in england

Not yet but its essentially the same horse, different jockey anyway. They only difference is they are slightly more ethical, very slightly.

They are rumoured to be in talks with TfL to get licenced in London if Uber eventually does get banned

 

[bickster]

Uber just lost their employment tribunal appeal. They are going to appeal the appeal decision. Going to run and run and run this one.

[choffer]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

Uber just lost their employment tribunal appeal. They are going to appeal the appeal decision. Going to run and run and run this one.

Admittedly I don't use Uber often but I'd had to in the last couple of weeks (a combined lack of train and surfeit of alcoholic beverages) the drivers have all been of the opinion that Uber will sort it out and they're not worried at all. The last one even told me there was an unofficial 6 month extension agreed last week. 

[bickster]

53 minutes ago, choffer said:

Admittedly I don't use Uber often but I'd had to in the last couple of weeks (a combined lack of train and surfeit of alcoholic beverages) the drivers have all been of the opinion that Uber will sort it out and they're not worried at all. The last one even told me there was an unofficial 6 month extension agreed last week. 

Uber drivers are stupid, they wouldn’t drive for them if that weren't the case

I’m presuming you mean a six month extension to the TfL loss of licence? (A totally separate issue to the appeal they lost here.) if so it’s bullshit, it’s bullshit because they don’t need one. They can continue with their TfL licence as it currently stands until the appeal process is exhausted. The appeal process will probably take about 2 years to be exhausted.

This is a different issue, this is the case of how Uber drivers should be classified employment wise. The original tribunal and this appeal have both classified them as workers, this means they should be guaranteed the minimum wage and are entitled to, holiday pay, sick pay etc. It's a HUGE bill they'll have to pay. In some respects it’s good for the drivers but it’s also a case of be careful what you wish for, they’ll get rights... they’ll also get told when and where to work.

Edit: the idea that Uber will sort it out (TfL), is also fanciful. This is a licensing issue. Can you imagine a a pub landlord who lost his licence due to consistently serving under age kids going back to court to say, it’s ok it I’ve changed, I won’t do it again. The ex-landlord wouldn’t get his licence back.

In turn, if they do eventually lose their TfL licence for good, that means they could actually lose every licence they hold in the UK, as a part of any taxi operators licence is the fit and proper test... by losing theTfL licence on the grounds they will have lost it on, would prove that they aren’t fit and proper to hold ANY licence

[choffer]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Uber drivers are stupid, they wouldn’t drive for them if that weren't the case

I’m presuming you mean a six month extension to the TfL loss of licence? (A totally separate issue to the appeal they lost here.) if so it’s bullshit, it’s bullshit because they don’t need one. They can continue with their TfL licence as it currently stands until the appeal process is exhausted. The appeal process will probably take about 2 years to be exhausted.

This is a different issue, this is the case of how Uber drivers should be classified employment wise. The original tribunal and this appeal have both classified them as workers, this means they should be guaranteed the minimum wage and are entitled to, holiday pay, sick pay etc. It's a HUGE bill they'll have to pay. In some respects it’s good for the drivers but it’s also a case of be careful what you wish for, they’ll get rights... they’ll also get told when and where to work.

The bold bit is clearly key. I should stop listening to whatever else they say

 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Uber just lost their employment tribunal appeal. They are going to appeal the appeal decision. Going to run and run and run this one.

I thought they would.

I hope their lawyers are applying surge pricing retrospectively, they are going to be busy.

[bickster]

Just now, TrentVilla said:

I thought they would.

I hope their lawyers are applying surge pricing retrospectively, they are going to be busy.

I never for one minute thought they’d win at this stage of the appeal process. I very much doubt they'll win an appeal until the Supreme Court, if they are allowed to go that far

[TrentVilla]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

I never for one minute thought they’d win at this stage of the appeal process. I very much doubt they'll win an appeal until the Supreme Court, if they are allowed to go that far

I would be surprised if they win at any stage personally.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

I would be surprised if they win at any stage personally.

Me too, I meant if they win one it'll be at the final hurdle but I’d still expect them to lose

[Davkaus]

So Uber have covered up a(nother) massive data breach.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42075306

Quote

 

Uber concealed a hack that affected 57 million customers and drivers, the company has confirmed.

The 2016 breach was hidden by the ride-sharing firm which paid hackers $100,000 (£75,000) to delete the data.

The company's former chief executive Travis Kalanick knew about the breach over a year ago, according to Bloomberg, which first broke the news.

The hackers found 57 million names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers, Uber said.

Within that number, 600,000 drivers had their names and licence details exposed. A resource page for those affected has been set up.

Drivers have been offered free credit monitoring protection, but according to Uber's statement, affected customers will not be given the same.

 

What do they do? Do they inform their customers and any appropriate regulatory body, following accepted practises of disclosure? Nope, instead they broke the law by failing to disclose the breach, and then paid the hacker $100,000 to delete the data. Because if you can't trust the word of a criminal, who can you trust?

**** this company, they ignore the law in every country they operate in, they ought to be put out of business.