Uber has long prohibited lawful concealed carry for both riders and drivers using the rideshare service, and drivers who've violated the policy and used their firearms to defend themselves from armed robbers and carjackers have been summarily dismissed as contractors for the company.
The demand that riders and drivers be disarmed is bad enough, but it looks even worse in light of the New York Times report that documents Uber's willingness to let violent felons serve as drivers, even after some of those drivers have been accused of violent offenses against Uber passengers.
According to the Times, Uber "rejects prospective drivers who have been convicted of murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and terrorism." However, in nearly two dozen states Uber has given the thumbs up to those convicted of most other violent crimes, including stalking, child abuse, and assault, as long as those convictions happened at least seven years ago.
Over time, company executives considered and ultimately chose not to expand the types of offenses that would disqualify someone, according to internal documents reviewed by The Times.
They also debated how thoroughly to look back for convictions. “We are def not doing everything we can,” Brooke Anderson, then Uber’s head of safety communications, said in a 2018 email exchange about background checks.
One brainstorming document listed nearly two dozen safety measures the company could adopt. In-person interviews were deemed logistically challenging, the document shows. Fingerprint checks were considered costly and time intensive.
Honestly, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Uber's policy if it didn't go hand in hand with requiring drivers and passengers to disarm themselves before using the service. If someone's done their time and is back on the street, I'd rather they be gainfully employed instead of returning to their criminal ways to make a buck.
But the risk of recidivism is real, and not every crime comes with an economic motive. It seems sensible to me that if Uber can't assure riders that their drivers won't harm them that those riders at least be able to protect themselves if need be.
In 2020, an Uber driver in San Diego was accused of using his fingers to forcibly penetrate a passenger’s vagina, then choking her and throwing her phone out the window when she tried to fight back. The driver’s record included felony convictions for assault with a deadly weapon in 2002 and 2006. Earlier in 2020, he had been arrested after an allegation of rape but not yet charged. Arrests alone are not disqualifying in Uber’s background checks.
The next year, an Uber driver in Tampa, Fla., was accused of raping a passenger who had been out celebrating her 21st birthday. The driver had eight felony convictions, including for robbery with a firearm in 2002, as well as more than a dozen driving violations.
And in the years since, drivers with convictions for assault, child abuse, armed robbery and other crimes have been accused of sexually assaulting passengers across the country, The Times found.
Most of my coverage of Uber's disarmament policies has focused on the drivers who are unable to defend themselves while behind the wheel, but the Times report is a shocking reminder that the company's policies are putting passengers at risk too. According to the Times, Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct about every eight minutes on average between 2017 to 2024, and that's just U.S.-based incidents.
Even if some of those reports were based on false accusations, there are enough documented cases of physical violence on Uber passengers (and drivers) that its unconscionable that the company continues to take the position that anyone lawfully carrying a concealed firearm while riding or driving for the company is subject to having their account deactivated and being prohibited from using the service going forward.
That policy hasn't stopped some drivers from choosing to carry anyway, and my guess is the same is true for some passengers as well. Can you blame them? Finding a new job or another way of getting around might be difficult, but it's easier than finding a new life if you're murdered by a passenger or driver.
I doubt that Uber's going to change its policy on firearms possession, though I suspect the New York Times report may lead the company to revisit its background check policies. Even if Uber bolsters the background checks it performs on drivers, though, it still won't be able to guarantee the safety and security of riders... and some will wisely choose to violate company police in order to protect themselves before, during, and after their trips.
