Uber’s Teens on the Loose: How Fingerprinting Became the Ultimate Status Quo
It’s time to confront the harsh reality: Uber’s latest scheme, Uber for Teens, has resurrected a hot button issue that the ride-hailing giant had hoped to keep buried forever – the requirement for drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks.
Let’s set the record straight: the original argument against fingerprinting was centered around the notion that it’s a relic of the past, a costly and archaic method of verification that would scare off prospective drivers. But what happened when Uber launched its own finger-in-the-dirt initiative? Suddenly, the whole issue got a fresh coat of spin and rhetoric. Now, we’re supposed to believe that background checks are adequate, even in cases where minors are involved? Ridiculous.
What’s at stake here isn’t just the safety of Uber’s most vulnerable passengers, but also the integrity of the company itself. You see, Uber’s resistance to fingerprinting isn’t just about convenience – it’s about controlling the narrative, cherry-picking facts, and gaslighting an entire industry.
The evidence against Uber is piling up, like the bodies of innocent passengers waiting in limbo for some sort of regulatory intervention. Take the California Public Utilities Commission, for example, which has been accused of ignoring warnings about the perils of allowing ride-hailing services to skirt responsibility for their drivers. Now, in light of Uber’s own fingerprint-gate, it seems as if the Commission is merely biding its time, waiting for public outrage to force its hand.
The ultimate hypocrisy here lies with the way Uber has chosen to treat the entire episode: as a minor distraction from the "real" issue, when, in fact, this is about more than just some squabbles over paperwork and background checks. This is about human life.
