Woman sues Lyft, says driver gang-raped her at gunpoint – and calls for app safety measures we can't believe aren't already in place A woman who says she was subjected to a horrific rape at the hands of her Lyft driver has sued the tech biz. Alison Turkos took what should have been a 15-minute trip home in New York in the fall of 2017, yet woke up mid-journey to find herself miles away, and in a different US state, being gang-raped at gunpoint by her driver …
"Lyft has actually “refused to cooperate with law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”"
If the above is true, I'm assuming the first thing she wants is for Lyft to cooperate fully with crime enforcement and take allegations seriously, and not necessarily just "fire anyone".
I would expect that Lyft, on being approached by the police / FBI, should have immediately turned over every bit of information about (a) the driver and his background checks (b) GPS trail for the night in question (c) all available GPS traces for other routes the driver drove and (d) any GPS traces about the complainants' past rides.
Failure to do so immediately could have, and perhaps has, compromised the police / FBIs ability to build a case that is not based solely on the victim's testimony (which has a low probability of clearing the 'beyond reasonable doubt'). For example take DNA samples from under alleged perps' fingernails, traffic camera recordings for the route etc etc. A lot of this type of evidence needs to be secured immediately or is gone forever, hence Lyft's dilly-dallying (to protect their own image) could have destroyed any possibility of a successful prosecution.
"If the above is true, I'm assuming the first thing she wants is for Lyft to cooperate fully with crime enforcement"
This is the part that really confuses me. Lots of people commit crimes, and most of them have a job of some sort. The fact that a company employs someone who commits a crime does not generally reflect badly on said company. If a doctor steals a bottle of whisky from Tesco, you don't sue the hospital for employing him before that. So why would Lyft not cooperate? One among thousands of low-level workers they don't give a shit about commits a crime, the police ask for information, Lyft say "Here's everything we know about him, he's just some guy we employ and we don't give a shit about him". If he's found not guilty, or not charged at all, they continue to employ him, otherwise they don't.
I know all these so-called gig economy companies tend to be as shitty as they possibly can in pretty much every circumstance, but that's usually in cases where they actually stand to benefit from their shitty behaviour. For something like this, there doesn't appear to be any possible benefit for Lyft. They don't have a problem finding employees, so losing this one guy isn't relevant to them. The absolute best possible outcome is that no-one does anything about it and they have net zero benefit; every other outcome where they face increased police scrutiny, lawsuits, and regulation is a serious negative for them. So I just don't understand their behaviour at all. Have they just spent so much time being shitty to everyone that they forgot to check whether it's actually beneficial to their bottom line first?
"why would Lyft not cooperate?"
Because their leadership are stupid and short-termist.
They've done the calculation and decided that news stories about sexual assaults due to their doing the bare minimum they can get away with is better than investigating properly and weeding out the predatory employees.
Basically, marginally reduced business vs massive costs of better background checks, the delay that adequate checks incur that mean fewer drivers apply and get through and that reduce the speed they can expand.
This is why we need proper regulation - we can rely on business to do the bare minimum. When more is needed from business we need more than pressure from the press.
I'm surprised politicians aren't all over this already. Possibly they take a similar attitude to the businesses that also don't give a f about the people they serve.
If a serious allegation is made about a teacher say (a job where you have to have background checks) then they would have to be suspended on full pay until the case was settled - or at least it turned out that they could be sacked for some reason, given the lower standard of proof required for a sacking compared to a conviction.
Why can't any corporation have some sense of moral responsibility? These ride-sharing businesses seem to be among the worst. I've avoided Uber because of the way they treat people, but now I see Lyft is as bad or worse.
Why the hell don't our lawmakers fix this by making these companies responsible so they actually do something about this? Oh, yeah, big corporate lobbying.
"Why can't any corporation have some sense of moral responsibility?"
Because they'll claim they have a moral responsibility to their shareholders. Can't you hear the cries from the boardroom? "What about the shareholders? Who will save the shareholders?!"
"Why the hell don't our lawmakers fix this by making these companies responsible"
Because they know who's paying for their re-election campaign, and they want to secure a fat paycheck after they're out of office.
Sarcasm. obs.
We really need lawmakers to wake up from their afternoon naps and see the real world.
Not going to happen anytime soon I know.
My thoughts go out to those who have suffered injustice and also to those who will suffer in the future.
New tech companies aren't the only bad actors, but they are getting away with making money whilst bad shit happens.
They don't care because they aren't regulated and they have no conscience.
Time to pass some new laws, time put put some people in jail.
My sympathies for the victim, as this is obviously something that nobody should have to endure.
That said, when all these services launched there was a lot of concern regarding inadequate screening and checks of drivers, so I can’t say that I’m surprised in the least that such things have happened. Neither should anyone else be. You get what you pay for.
She reported the incident within 24 hours to Lyft but waited another day before making the difficult decision to report the incident to police.
So she had no problem calling a faceless corporation and reporting the kidnapping and rape, then took issue with them ignoring her pleas and insisting she pay the fare. However, it was a difficult decision to report the incident to police. Doesn't add up.
A investigative viewpoint a rape kit would have been done ( and was ) , this would have obtained DNA ( may still be present days after the attack ) counselling and support groups are automatically involved. Considering the "state line" scenario and the allegation of kidnapping, FBI are involved. The allegation and the evidence obtained from the rape kit , is more the sufficient to obtain either a Court order or subpoena for Lyft to provide the name of the driver. Failure to do so is tantamount to aiding and abetting after the fact for all felony charges.
Interestingly, if Lyft ignored the subpoena and the offender then commits a similar offence (kidnap and/or sexual assault). There is legal precedents to support Aid and Abetting before the fact charges.
So yeah something doesn't add up....
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the mental state of someone who went through the ordeal they described.
Also, talking to the police involves formal interviews, lawyers, identifying the suspect, collecting of DNA evidence, perhaps even court appearances - not particularly nice experiences versus lodging a complaint to an app maker.
C.
Dio, with all due respect, the story really doesn't add up:
A bit of digging shows that ( and I'll be careful..)
- The alledged assailant, according to Uber, fulfilled all the qualifications and licenses necessary for operating a taxi in NYC. In other words, he was at least capable/licensed to also drive one of the Yellow Cabs. Which should make him doubly easy to find.
- The purported victim *did* lodge a complaint with Uber the next day, about the bill.. And went through the mill doing the rape kit experience well within the timeframe necessary. And it was found that it had DNA of two males on her clothes. However, the sequence of events as described in the article only emerged after "months of recollection". Traumatic as rape is, I do believe you tend to remember stuff like that rather acutely, rather than months later. Cognitive dissociation is a thing, but the bill and rape kit experience alone should have given acute flashbacks right then, not months later.
- I cannot believe that both NY(C?)PD and the FBI totally failed to investigate a kidnap/rape first category case where the alledged assailant can be easily tracked down for the primary investigation. The rape kit *did* get processed, so any investigation, given the severity of the charges and the ease with which the alleged assailant *should* have been found should have gotten results. It's a detective's wet dream....
- I very much doubt that Lyft would keep any driver in their active pool when the driver in question is subject to a FBI investigation ( and Lyft would have been involved in any FBI investigation, at least for activity/ride logs..). And while they can try to be "innocent" of any dodgyness in their drivers before any act, they sure as hell would be liable after the fact. And a FBI investigation into the activities of one of "their" drivers is a big hint. Ignoring that would have their legal department in a fit big enough to trigger the San Andreas fault. Yet according to the article they did just that.. And allowed a "name change"..
There's more, but the points above alone would have a defense lawyer salivating like an overbred bulldog presented with a side of bacon. So yeah... it "doesn't add up".
Look, we talked it over in the office. There are parts that are baffling - why can't the cops or Feds just question the guy, or check phone records, the usual stuff.
But then in this day and age, nothing surprises us anymore: incompetence and misfortune and difficulties strike at every level.
The article is presented as is: reporting what she has claimed, and what she wants implemented, which to us seem pretty basic measures.
C.
And I am not claiming it is other than it is. We share the same bafflement, and I am reading this as a Cloggie seeing proof that the world has gone batty..
You also have to agree that given the readership of El Reg, and the shedload of Office Bingo most of the commentards have had to endure in their professional careers when dealing with applying the logic needed to tell the electronic morons we herd versus expectations of Manglement and Commitee Meetings, this story raises a "couple" of warning flags.
If we failed to spot the glaring holes, we would simply not be suited for our jobs.
Independent of the merits of the case, which as described should be open and close not least because of the available, telemetry, it's not a secret that the main advantage for these companies is the lack of regulation, which means they can undercut existing services. Unfortunately, the media is at least partly guilty of providing them with free publicity focussing on the convenience and lower cost. Only recently on QI Holly Walsh boasted about relying to get home with Uber no matter what state she was in.
Fundamentally this is a failure of regulation: harmonising the rules in the UK for private hire vehicles and taxi cabs would be easy; as in America would be removing the artificial restriction of taxi licences, which turn it into a restricted trade with not enough capacity when and where required. But we shouldn't overlook our own culpability in continuing to provide PR for these companies.
Back to the case itself: in the US things do get very tricky as soon as crimes cross state lines. Nevertheless, there should still be a case to answer with New York alone if the journey was not as specified.
"The starting point for Lyft, however – as for every other organization – is to “believe survivors; it is critical that they be believed,”
Well that would certainly simplify things. I would have said the starting point was to investigate and act on what the evidence supported.
And given the lack of criminal charges, that makes me wonder exactly what the evidence in this case does support.
In a rape trial the victim is forced to recall the event over and over. She is frequently accused of provoking the attack, leading the attacker on or misidentifying him - literally "how could you tell if it was the defendant who was raping you when you were under so much stress, what with being raped at the time" in some cases - and even of having actually consented and only crying rape after the fact. Many, many victims decline to press charges because they don't want to have to go through all that when the conviction rate is also appallingly low.
So yes, I can see a woman in this circumstance not wanting to go to the courts but still wanting to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.
While what you say is largely true, it's also doesn't matter. What matters here is how Lyft responded to customer's complaint and report of sexual assault and how it fails to check its drivers properly.
You comment on public transport is entirely irrelevant as this is about private hire.
The issues of crime around carriage for hire have existed since the first passenger journeys in coach and horses centuries ago, that's largely why we've ended up with the regulations we have today. They are far from perfect, but they are a refined attempt to keep the public safe.
Companies who want to disrupt the market by ignoring the regulations are putting public safety at risk and deserve to taken apart when they fail public safety. Markets do need to evolve, technology can make the market competitive and cheaper, but you need to refine the existing rules, not ignore them.
The taxi company I usually use does already.
It has an app, but also when you call for a cab, you get texts with the driver name and car reg, and another informing you of the fixed price for the journey. If you don’t want to use an app then there is a link to a website showing you where the car is.
I therefore know how much, and what car to look for before they get to my door (or where I am being picked up from.
Regardless to this case, I see no reason why all of these ride services can't match the 'camera in the cab' and keep the footage for 72 hours. Seems like a good idea in general for both the driver and the passengers point of view and pretty easy to mandate / implement.
And frankly if I was a driver I would want a camera in there.
... you can't be picky about those who are cheap labour.
Real background checks will make drivers harder to find and more expensive. Letting everybody working for you, including Dracula, Jack The Ripper and Mr Hyde helps to keep pays to "contractors" low and to please investors.
It is best to remember that when a Unicorn service claims that its "innovative" approach to market disruption is to drive out market inefficiencies, safety and security for customers, workers, and just about anyone except the owners are among those "inefficiencies." There isn't anything particularly innovative about that approach. The "muckrakers" in the US documented the approach and its effects over a century ago. Applications of that approach well over a century and a half ago prompted Karl Marx to start musing about economics.
Setting aside the question of veracity in this particular case, Lyft can certainly wire their application to improve safety, particularly with regard to route deviation and passenger safety surveillance as suggested. Coupled with sufficient driver screening and background checks, it would seem prudent to limit their liability on the condition that such procedures are in place and observed. I would call it aligning incentives.
To me, this is a law enforcement problem mostly. Yes, a background check that includes determining any arrests or convictions for any type of assaults(sexual or otherwise) should bar one from employment. Other than that, it's up to law enforcement to put this guy in jail or the ground. I'm always wary of people who sue for money rather than trying to get justice in the criminal justice system.
" background check that includes determining any arrests or convictions for any type of assaults(sexual or otherwise) should bar one from employment"
Think of all the money we can save in the criminal justice system. Since by this logic we make one permanently unemployable just merely by being arrested for assault. Might as well just dump them in prison or other suitable dumping ground for those that no longer qualify for inclusion in society at large. Why bother investigating if they were actually guilty of any assault, wrongly arrested, acting in self defense? Once arrested for assault you are no longer employable in an occupation seen by many as the lowest skilled and valued in the entire society.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
