NYC Taxi And Limo Commission Looks To Regulate All Ride Hailing Services

from the because-that's-how-innovation-works dept

Whatever you might think of Uber in terms of its attitude and practices (and, really, people feel this weird need to rant on about such feelings, but that's unrelated to the point of this post -- so no need to tell everyone), you can't really deny that it has truly revolutionized the way that many people are able to get around in a variety of metropolitan areas. And Uber and its various competitors have done this by building a better system that is much more convenient and easy to use, and actually using much more realistic market forces, rather than doing silly things like artificially limiting the number of taxi medallions to keep taxi services scarce and expensive.

Of course, the old beneficiaries of the system, have hit back any way they can. As we've written repeatedly, various cab companies and bureaucrats seem to go out of their way to attack such ride sharing services. The typical go-to claim from those hating on ride hailing services is that because they're less regulated, they're more subject to fraud and abuse or unsafe driving conditions. There is, however, little evidence to back that up. While there are some anecdotal stories of bad ride hailing drivers, we're already seeing innovative ways to deal with that. For example, in India, Uber recently added an emergency button to its app, which would directly alert police if a rider was in trouble.

In short, what we've seen is that, through innovation, competition and (most importantly) an abundance of information, a better overall result can occur. The reasons for many taxi regulations in the past was because of clear information asymmetry: taxi drivers could (and frequently did) screw over passengers, because there was basically no recourse. There was no way for a rider to know if the driver was safe or not, and (more importantly) no real way for that rider to then warn future passengers. But ride hailing services changed that in a big way by flipping the equation, and allowing a good way to rate drivers and to create incentives for those drivers to do a good job. It's not perfect, but, frankly, my own experience in using Uber and Lyft has been that the overall experience has been much, much better than using a traditional cab.

In New York City -- a place where cabs have long been limited by its famous medallion system -- there's been a struggle to deal with this innovative change. Just last year, we wrote about the Taxi and Limousine Commission declaring Lyft to be illegal. And, a few months ago, a NYC politician proposed a bill that would require the TLC to create its own Uber-like app. Because, apparently, innovation works by having the government mandate another part of the government copy an innovative company?

Either way, the TLC is now looking to go even further, in proposing new rules that say that basically any ride hailing app should be fully regulated by the NYC TLC and including a bunch of conditions that really don't seem necessary. Some of them just seem like relics from a previous era that are there because they were there in the past. It's difficult to see why that makes any sense. And then there are new requirements that also seem bizarre. Like this:

The website and/or smartphone application must provide Passengers, upon request, with an estimate of the total fare, inclusive of all fees and any price multiplier or variable pricing policy in effect, for the ride.

I can see how that would be a nice feature to have, but should it be required by the government? If Uber doesn't provide that and Lyft does, then isn't that just a competitive advantage for Lyft? And, really, do existing taxi systems already do that beyond a driver tossing out a random estimate off the top of his head on how much it will cost to go somewhere?

Then there's something really concerning: buried in the rules is the idea that drivers can only work for one provider at a time. I've seen many drivers that work for both Lyft and Uber (and sometimes others as well). Specifically, the rules have a "one device" rule -- saying drivers can only use a single device at a time, but many drivers that I've seen who work for multiple services have separate devices (and some, like Uber, will offer to rent you a special phone just for being an Uber driver, if you don't want to/can't use your own phone).

A Base Owner must not dispatch a For-Hire Vehicle that is equipped with more than one electronic device in addition to the dispatch equipment required by the Vehicle’s affiliated Base...

Again, I'm sure the TLC would argue that this is for safety reasons. Elsewhere in the document it suggests that by arguing that this single device cannot be handheld:

a For-Hire Vehicle may be equipped with one electronic device that is used to accept dispatches from a Base or FHV Dispatch Application, provided that that the device is mounted in a fixed position and not hand-held and use of the electronic device is limited to either voice or one-touch preprogrammed buttons or keys while the Vehicle is in motion.

And, sure, you can reasonably worry about the driving safety of someone who has multiple such devices, though I've seen plenty of drivers with two or three phones lined up in a way that seems perfectly reasonable.

The more glaring concern here, though, is that such a rule basically locks in the incumbents and harms the upstarts. If a driver can't drive for Uber and a new ride hailing startup, they're likely to just stick with Uber, and the upstarts get cut out. That's a problem. Even if that's not the intention, it's these kinds of regulations that all too often lock things in so that incumbents stay in power, while startups are blocked.

Furthermore, just the idea that any new service in this space has to now go and plead with the TLC to get "licensed" is going to slow and limit the opportunities for new and innovative players in this space. Uber got to where it was by building a useful service, not having to ask local bureaucrats for permission every time. The next generation of companies looking to reinvent the space won't be so lucky -- and that may mean we all suffer.

Filed Under: new york, new york city, regulations, ride hailing
Companies: lyft, sidecar, uber

New York City Court Buys NYPD's Claims Of 'National Security,' Grants It Power To 'Glomar' FOIL Requests

from the don't-have-to-confirm-or-deny-jackshit,-citizen dept

A New York City court has given the NYPD one of the few things separating it from the "big boys" (CIA, FBI and NSA): the permission to issue "Glomar responses" (the infamous "we can neither confirm nor deny...") to FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) requests. Like the audacity of the department itself in pursuing this additional method of keeping the public separated from public documents, the decision is unprecedented.

The decision appears to be the first time that a court anywhere in the U.S. has upheld the use of such a tactic by a state agency. The Glomar response has historically been used only with regard to requests made to federal agencies that involve sensitive matters of national security.

That a New York court would find in the home team's favor is perhaps inevitable. The NYPD, along with various officials, have long portrayed the safety of New York City as inextricably intertwined with the safety of the nation itself -- a view partially justified by the city's position as the epicenter of the 9/11 attacks.

But doing so allows a department with a proven track record of open hostility towards FOIL requests another way to abuse its position. On top of heavy redactions, an in-house classification system that has no apparent legal basis, and plain old stonewalling, the NYPD will now be able to simply claim it can't even acknowledge the existence of responsive documents. This shifts the balance too far in its favor.

At the federal level, use of Glomar responses is premised on the argument that there are certain matters of national security that would result in irrevocably harm if divulged to the general public. It has been criticized by open government groups, including the Reporters Committee, because it allows agencies to deny FOIA requests without giving detailed reasons that the requesters can argue against. Once an agency invokes the Glomar doctrine, courts generally afford it great weight and rarely inquire further.

And that's at the federal level, where claims of national security should carry with them a bit more credulousness. The actual "Glomar" in the original "Glomar response" referred to the CIA salvage vessel being used to find a sunken Soviet submarine. These days, it's used to tell FOIA requesters that the NSA can neither confirm nor deny it uses terms like "collect it all," or has compiled any data at all on the requester him/herself.

The NYPD has now been granted a federal power, without having to show its national security claims are valid. If the requested documents do indeed contain information possibly damaging to national security, why isn't there a federal agency involved? It's well known that the NYPD prefers to run a highly autonomous agency -- one that inserts itself into terrorist investigations overseas but openly rebuffs FBI assistance in its own town. But if you're going to claim you may or may not be in possession of investigatory documents with national security ramifications, then you should also be asked to explain why the FBI, DHS or other national agency isn't included on the CC line, and why this federal agency isn't the one kicking out the Glomar response.

Considering the documents currently being Glomared ("...a request by Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid for records regarding NYPD surveillance of himself and his mosque…") are related to the counter-terrorist investigations of the recently shuttered "Demographics Unit," there's a good chance no federal agency would touch them with a 10-foot redaction. The division seemed to pride itself on willful violations of civil liberties, but this methodology turned the (often minimal) fruits of its investigations too toxic for even the CIA to partake in.

So, the NYPD may actually be sitting on something that implicates national security, but it's finding no federal takers thanks to its inability to respect the Constitution or to work well with others. That's a problem. But it's not nearly as much of a problem as being granted a new power to abuse in its quest for law enforcement opacity.

Filed Under: foia, foil, glomar, national security, new york city, nypd

New York City Dept. Of Education Suspends Special Needs Instructor For Helping Student With A Kickstarter Project

from the system-broken-all-the-way-UP-as-well dept

A New York city schoolteacher sent sexually explicit emails to a student -- emails he admitted to sending. It took six years to get him fired, during which he was paid $350,000.

Another instructor was given a 60-day suspension for continually making offensive remarks to his students, like, "These Chinese students need to go back to their own country. They don't belong here."

A NYC school swim coach repeatedly touched and kissed his female students. Told one to shave the hair around her bikini. Commented on another's tan lines. He paid a $7,000 fine and was instructed to take a sexual harassment class.

Hundreds of New York city teachers bounced around the city's so-called "Rubber Rooms" for years, drawing full pay while playing cards and reading magazines as they killed time waiting for their case to come up. Some were "merely" incompetent. Others were facing misconduct charges, ranging from altering grades to physically or verbally abusing students. Very few of these teachers were ever fired. Firing a NYC teacher is generally a costly labyrinth that few with the power to eliminate bad teachers are willing to navigate. (PDF link to a 2-page flowchart showing all the steps needed to remove a lousy teacher from NYC schools.)

These are just some that actually were punished as the result of an investigation. Few teachers actually find themselves being punished for their actions. Between tenure and the city's powerful unions, the Dept. of Education has very little power to reprimand those it's charged with overseeing. But if the system wants to expeditiously punish a teacher, it can. But those it acts quickly against generally aren't the problem.

Case in point: Therapist Deb Fisher received a 30-day suspension for misconduct. Her misconduct?

She raised money on Kickstarter for a program that she and the student, Aaron Philip, 13, created called This Ability Not Disability. An investigator with the Education Department’s Office of Special Investigations, Wei Liu, found that Ms. Fisher sent emails about the project during her workday at Public School 333, the Manhattan School for Children, and was thus guilty of “theft of services.”

Unmentioned in the official report leading to this suspension were any of the following details.

• The entire school, including the principal, was involved with the Kickstarter project and routinely utilized school email accounts to send update blasts.
• Ms. Fisher developed an arts program for disabled students aimed at developing tools and supplies they could use. She received a mayoral commendation for this effort.
• She spearheaded a drive to ensure permanent, accessible housing for Aaron Phillip and his family after unemployment led to a stay at a homeless shelter.
• The Kickstarter project -- a graphic novel and movie about being the only person with legs in a world filled with wheelchair users -- hit its goal and was celebrated during a town hall meeting.

All of this was ignored in order to punish Ms. Fisher for a small infraction of the rules. The investigation itself stemmed from something even more small-minded and petty than the Dept. of Education's final decision.

[A] co-worker with whom Ms. Fisher had had continuing disagreements made a series of charges against her. Ms. Fisher had complained that the co-worker was physically bullying and taunting her.

Even the best people have their flaws. It's not altogether inconceivable that this one-woman storm of good deeds wasn't above treating someone horribly. Except the accusations were lies.

The special investigators found that none of the serious allegations against Ms. Fisher were true, but said she was guilty of fund-raising for “her own charity.”

Except that this isn't true either. The money went to the student. Not that the Department ultimately cared to sort out the facts.

The report made no mention that the entire building had been involved with the effort, nor did it try to determine whether Ms. Fisher would profit from it in any way. She was suspended on Sept. 15 until the end of October.

Because rules are rules and using the school's email system to raise money for a personal project (albeit one that completely benefited a different person) isn't allowed... even if the rest of the school -- including the principal -- did the same thing. Fisher's 30-day suspension for helping an overachieving student pursue his dreams is the same amount handed out to librarian Devin Black, who helped a 13-year-old student fulfill Black's dreams by telling her she "looked sexy," while touching her -- something that wasn't an isolated incident.

Justice -- true justice -- may be blind, but what passes for "justice" in bureaucratic systems is spineless, officious and brutally incompetent. The same can be said for those who apply the "rules" in this fashion, ensuring no good deed goes unpunished while ignoring the rot and corruption inherent in the system. Whoever oversees the New York Dept. of Education needs to tell everyone involved in this decision that they're clearly too stupid to be entrusted with this -- or any -- power.

Filed Under: aaron philip, bureaucracy, deb fisher, new york city, nyc, suspension, teachers

NY Port Authority Claims To Own The NYC Skyline: Tells Store To Destroy Skyline-Themed Plates

from the your-bullying-is-of-great-concern dept

What is it with insane NY-related bureaucrats and their attempts to "own" things? In the past, we've covered how New York State is a pretty big trademark bully over the "I ♥ NY" phrase, and did you know that the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) claims ownership over the phrase "If you see something, say something"? And, now, we find out that the controversy-ridden Port Authority of NY and NJ appears to be claiming ownership of the NYC skyline. No joke. It apparently sent a cease-and-desist letter to Fishs Eddy, a housewares store in Manhattan that is selling some city themed dishes.

According to the Port Authority, Fishs Eddy can't do that, because, dammit, only the Port Authority owns some of those buildings and bridges.

In a letter to Fishs Eddy dated July 24, Veronica Rodriguez, a lawyer for the authority, asked the store to stop selling anything with these “assets” on them, and to “destroy all materials, documents and other items bearing the assets.”

“Your use of the Port Authority’s assets on dinnerware and other items is of great concern to the Port Authority,” she wrote.

Yes, and your use of stupid bullying tactics over people celebrating your city is of great concern to pretty much everyone else. What sort of life must you lead to spend your work life looking for people to bully for daring to sell merchandise that celebrates the city you technically work for?

Filed Under: intellectual property, new york city, nyc, ownership, port authority, skyline
Companies: fishs eddy

Former FBI Agent: NYPD's Muslim-Spying Demographics Unit Was Almost Completely Useless

from the holds-several-'most-rights-violated'-trophies,-however dept

Certain demographics are desirable. 18-34? Taste-makers and early adopters. 35-49? Money. Muslim and New York City resident? Being a member of this group meant (until recently) having First Amendment-protected activities being closely scrutinized by the NYPD's now-defunct "Demographics Unit."

This special unit was recently disbanded, roughly a decade after it should have been, thanks to a new mayor and a new police commissioner. The unit was put together by a former CIA officer who used the post-9/11 attack climate to push for expansive surveillance of the city's Muslim population, including designating entire mosques as terrorist-related entities. Despite all the extra attention being paid to Muslims, not a single useful investigation resulted from this unit's work.

The surveillance being done by this unit so pervasively subverted civil liberties protections that not even the CIA could access the NYPD's files without breaking its internal rules. The same goes for the FBI, which has long partnered with the NYPD in its counter-terrorism efforts. Don Borelli, a former FBI agent, has written a piece for the New York Daily News, detailing why police commissioner Bill Bratton was right to disband the Demographics Unit.

Together, we were able to stop many threats — and save many lives — including a serious plot against the subways from Najibullah Zazi, an ethnic Afghan who grew up in Queens and went on to become an Al Qaeda operative.

Interestingly enough, the NYPD demographics unit had detailed files on Zazi's neighborhood in Flushing during the period in which he was becoming radicalized. It kept files on businesses and visited coffee shops believed to be hangouts for potential terrorists. The unit even visited the travel agency where Zazi bought his ticket to travel to Afghanistan for terrorism training.

So why wasn't Zazi identified until he was driving to New York from Denver to blow up the subway? Because the program was ineffective. The mission of the demographics unit was to spot the terrorists in the haystack, but again and again it failed to do so.

All haystack, no needle, like so many other surveillance programs. The unit overwhelmed itself in useless data, keeping it from finding what it needed when it mattered most. These data swamps built by investigative agencies have proven to be more dangerous than old-fashioned police work.

During my time with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, I read many reports derived from investigations conducted by the NYPD Intelligence Division, which may well have relied on the demographics unit's work. I was presented with many interesting facts about where people were attending Friday prayers and who belonged to various Muslim student associations.

But rarely did I learn anything I didn't already know through traditional investigations, much less anything that would have led me to open a terrorism investigation.

Adding to the mess here is the NYPD's twisted relationship with the FBI. While it clearly enjoys access to G-men and their tools, former police chief Ray Kelly often made it clear that his officers did superior work and that the FBI's production of information was too slow to be useful. Of course, FBI agents have said the same thing about the NYPD, particularly in the information department, where the sharing was usually a one-way street that flowed out of the FBI and into the NYPD's hands.

Beyond the antagonistic relationship is the Demographic Unit itself -- its own worst enemy. The former CIA officer who had a local judge rewrite guidelines to give the NYPD unprecedented permission for pervasive surveillance also managed to ensure that most info flowing back upstream to the FBI ended up being routed directly into the trash can.

Moreover, I wound up shredding some of these reports because they had no investigative value and, in my opinion, did not belong in any FBI file because they solely reported on what was First Amendment-protected activity.

Much like other failures to stop terrorist activity, the problems here were communication (too little) and information (too much). As Borelli notes, in his experience, it's been more useful to build trust than to endlessly spy, something the NYPD really hasn't made much effort to foster over the years. But its failure to do so means it has buried itself in data and alienated those who could bring an inside perspective. A decade's worth of spying resulted in nothing but violated rights.

Filed Under: demographics unit, fbi, muslims, new york city, nyc, nypd

Next From The Nanny State: Bloomberg Tries To Make You Not Think About Cigarettes

from the and-next-we-close-down-candy-shops dept

Mr. Burns: Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing: block it out.
Mr. Bloomberg: Yes. The people must be protected from the sun’s harmful UV radiation!
Mr. Burns: Umm, sure, whatever. [Activates Sun Blocker]
Mr. Bloomberg: Excellent.

I fully believe that Bloomberg would ration sun time if he could — or at the very least force everybody to wear sunscreen. Like your mother, he simply thinks that he knows what is better for you and what you should be allowed to do. And he’s willing to use any means necessary, fair or unfair, legal or illegal, to make you do what he thinks you should be doing.

The latest: since he can’t force stores to display horrific images with the purchase of cigarettes, he now wants to prohibit stores from displaying cigarettes at all.

Will the courts smack him down again?

The WSJ Law Blog has a very interesting analysis of the possible legality of Bloomberg’s (a former smoker) latest attack on cigarettes. Here’s the actual law that Bloomberg is proposing:

A retail dealer shall not display or permit the display of any cigarettes or cigarette packaging in a manner that allows a person to view such cigarettes or cigarette packaging prior to purchase at any place of business operated by such dealer.

You’re allowed to buy them, but not look at them… because looking at them will remind you that you are LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY and can do what you want.

But this paternalistic restriction might be legal, or at least not as illegal as Bloomberg’s attempt to force cigarette sellers to have posters of lung cancer:

Enacted in 1965, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act required that cigarette ads and packages contain those now-ubiquitous health warnings. But it also offered tobacco companies assurance that they wouldn’t have to comply with a whole other set of local labeling laws.

Federal courts concluded that New York City’s poster law failed to conform with the national standard.

But in 2009 Congress amended the statute to give cities and states more leeway to impose tobacco restrictions. Local governments still couldn’t regulate the “content” of tobacco advertising or promotion. But they could say where and when cigarettes may be sold.

Great, so saying “smokes can only be sold out of a trashcan in the alley out back after you put your money into a rat’s ass” might be legal.

You know, law is better when people are just honest about what they want. If Bloomberg wants to ban the purchase of cigarettes in the city, he should just say that. Pass a bill (does he even have to pass these bills? Is the New York City Council even awake?) outlawing smoking and argue it to a court. Go ahead, let’s fight this battle between personal freedom and public health out in the open, and let the courts (or, you know, the people) decide.

But trying to slowly erode the rights and freedoms of New Yorkers is for the birds. Bloomberg is hoping that everybody will wake up one day and just not want to smoke (or have soda, or eat salty food). But like your mother found out, nagging people to death doesn’t change their desires. It just makes people more creative about doing what they want behind their mothers’ backs.

A Legal Look at Bloomberg’s Latest Anti-Cigarette Push [WSJ Law Blog]

More stories from Above The Law

• No Money, No Lawyers, No Problem
• Legal Recruiter Fails To Understand Hiring Process, Basic Social Conventions
• Benchslap of the Day: Kozinski & Co. Overturn a Murder Conviction

Filed Under: cigarettes, michael bloomberg, nanny state, new york city

If Most Crime Involves A 'Cyber' Element, Can't We Just Call It Crime Instead Of Cybercrime?

from the scary-scary-internet dept

It is a standing modern truth that you can take a scary word in the English language and turbocharge its terror factor by putting the word "cyber" in front of it. Don't believe me? Murder. Some guy stabs or shoots me. Cyber-murder. Holy crap! A dude can reach through the computer and electrocute my face! The problem, as we've discussed previously, is that many of the supposed facts used to hype cybercrime are massively overstated, and the unfortunately resulting hysteria breeds atrocities like The Patriot Act, because computers are terrifying and apparently the government is not. Of course, it doesn't end with crime. Cyberwar, cyber-terrorism, these words now permeate the bloodstream like terrifying nanobots, all while the use of technology and the internet marches forward at incredible rates.

But is the term "cybercrime" even useful anymore? When NYC district attorneys like Manhattan's Cyrus Vance suggest that pretty much all crime includes a cyber element, can't we just drop the scare words and go back to calling it "crime?"

According to Vance, cybercrime isn't just a growing trend—it's a fundamental shift in the way modern crime works. It has already reached a point where nearly every crime in the city involves a cyber component.

"It is rare that a case does not involve some kind of cyber or computer element that we prosecute in our office—whether it is homicide, whether it's a financial crime case, whether it's a gang case where the gang members are posting on Facebook where they're going to meet," said Vance.

It seems to me that just because there is a small element in a murder that involves a computer, that doesn't make it cybercrime, but that's apparently how it's being reported at the DA's office. This, of course, allows federal agencies like DHS and the CIA to get involved, where they, otherwise, would not.

The city is getting help from the Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, local businesses, and others. This system of cooperation was actually set up in 2001 when President George W. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law. It established the Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) under the Secret Service. According to the Secret Service website, "The concept of the ECTF network is to bring together not only federal, state and local law enforcement, but also prosecutors, private industry and academia."

I wouldn't want to necessarily suggest that having the alphabet agencies get involved at some level is always going to be a bad thing, but perhaps it is time we all had a conversation about how we, as citizens, want to be policed in America. That question is going to dovetail into whether or not we want scare-words like "cyber" to result in law enforcement evolving away from the local level to the federal level. For a country that bangs the "get government out of our lives" drum so frequently, often from the party that spawned The PATRIOT Act no less, we seem quite willing to let irrational fear dominate us.

Filed Under: computers, cybercrime, cyrus vance, district attorney, new york city