Yesterday, we took a look at possible effects of the London Uber ban for drivers across the globe. Today, let’s dive into the details of what exactly Uber did to cause all the headlines (again).
Transport for London, the governing body that issues licenses for private ridehailing services like Uber, denied the company a license on four concerns:
- Criminal offenses.
- Obtainment practices for driver medical certificates.
- Background check procedure.
- Use of “Greyball” software to evade authorities.
What is Greyball?
The last item in that list is probably the least familiar, so let’s start there. A New York Times investigation found that Uber could use Greyball to avoid law enforcement surveillance of the company.
The software existed originally as part of a program intended to identify users who violated the terms of service. However, Uber has used it to avoid law enforcement rather than just phony users.
Greyballing came on scene back in 2014 when a Portland code enforcement inspector attempted to request a ride from Uber as part of a sting operation. Uber hadn’t secured proper licensure for its operation in Portland at that point, so authorities tried to catch them in the act.
However, the operation quickly found that either the cars they saw on-screen were not actual cars or else the company cancelled any rides they scheduled almost immediately. Uber used the software to differentiate between sting operation members and real riders. They “Greyballed” the law enforcement members instead, showing them a fake version of the app and denying them any rides.
Greyballing seems to be the biggest reason for the move to ban Uber.
How does Greyball work?
Uber used a number of information resources to “tag” users it thought might be connected with law enforcement. These resources included:
- Credit card information (checking for payment of dues to police unions)
- GPS location (checking for proximity to government buildings)
- Social media profiles (checking for ties to law enforcement)
- Phone models (identifying and tagging models most likely to be used by law enforcement)
If the software tagged a given user, that user would see a separate version of the app from everyone else. Rather than seeing actual Uber drivers in their area, they would see “ghost” cars driving around on the app. If a tagged user somehow managed to book a ride, they would get a call cancelling it shortly thereafter.
In an open email to employees, published on Twitter, Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, head of Uber’s European operations, denied that the Greyball software had been used in the U.K. to evade law enforcement.
Uber Ban Cites Criminal Offenses
Greyballing isn’t Transport for London’s only complaint against Uber, either. They also listed the company’s dealings with criminal offenses as a reason to ban Uber. A story that broke earlier in August said Uber has been accused of not reporting a driver who made a sexual attack on a passenger. The same driver, who went unreported the first time, made a second attack.
Other reports of unreported incidents included a driver resorting to what appeared to be pepper spray in response to a road rage incident.
Issues with Driver Background Checks and Medical Exams
Another claim against Uber is not being thorough enough in their background checks. Earlier this month, Transport for London told Uber they had to redo some 13,000 background checks.
This isn’t the first claim that Uber either does insufficient background checks or not doing them at all.
Transport for London was vague about the issues with medical exams, although it could have been referring to issues with fake medical all-clears being allegedly issued. Uber has also had accusations of mishandling of medical records.
