ROCKVILLE, Md. — A new study prepared by experts with deep experience in law enforcement and approved by an all volunteer expert panel of law enforcement, criminalists, security officials and academics emphasizes that fingerprint based criminal background checks are 43 times more effective than the name based checks currently used by Uber and Lyft.
The extensive 113 page study was designed to determine best practices for ensuring the safety of passengers when using for-hire vehicles.
Biometric electronic fingerprints are preferred over name check (or social security number) searches. The FBI reports that the current technology for biometric checks has a less than 1 percent error rate, while name based background checks can have a potential error rate of 43%.
FBI fingerprint criminal background searches are highly preferable to name based background checks conducted by private third party commercial companies.
Government regulatory agencies—not private companies—should apply uniform licensing standards to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft, as well as to taxicab and limousine companies. They should make the decisions on whether drivers pose a public safety risk.
Drivers screened by self regulated TNCs may be deprived of their civil rights because there is no procedure or guarantee of an anti-discrimination review. Drivers should have the opportunity to be heard and present evidence as part of licensing procedures evaluating criminal convictions.
Having a different set of criminal background checks for TNCs than for taxicabs and limousines is likely unconstitutional and an unfair legislative act which is not only bad policy, but endangers the public and fosters unfair competition.
"Against the backdrop of Uber seeking to convince states that its driver screening methods are acceptable, this expert report conclusively states that fingerprint based criminal background checks are substantially safer," said Rebecca Walls, spokesperson for the TLPA'S 'Who's Driving You?' campaign. "This report emphasizes that it's the job of government to protect people, and this is particularly true when it comes to screening drivers of for-hire vehicles. Such responsibility should not be abdicated by government or usurped by a private corporation."
Amid revelations that a Houston Uber driver accused of raping a passenger served 14 years in federal prison, the City of Houston's Administration & Regulatory Affairs Department has issued a scathing white paper criticizing Uber's and Lyft's background checks. It contrasts them to the far more reliable criminal background checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The City of Houston conducted criminal background checks on drivers already approved to drive for Uber and Lyft, the white paper says. Houston's fingerprint based FBI conducted background checks found TNC approved drivers had prior criminal histories including indecent exposure, DWI, possession of a controlled substance, prostitution, fraud, battery, assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, possession of marijuana, theft, sale of alcohol to a minor, traffic of counterfeit goods, trademark counterfeit, possession of narcotics and driving with a suspended license.
The revelations come as Uber, an international corporation headquartered in the Netherlands, and its competitor Lyft, are spending upwards of $1 million on lobbyists in Texas seeking statewide legislation that would bypass any safety oversight by cities such as Houston.
The white paper states that Uber's and Lyft's background search companies, Hirease and Sterling Infosystems, are functioning more as credit checks than criminal background searches.
That's because, the report says, Uber's and Lyft's checks rely solely on names, social security numbers, past counties of residence and voter records rather than fingerprints, opening up the door to fraud and fake identities.
For example, a recent Uber driver cleared by Uber's screening company Hirease had 24 alias names, five separate birth dates, 10 different social security numbers, and an active warrant for arrest when checked by the FBI.
The report says Hirease itself admits fingerprint based checks are more secure because "fingerprinting helps uncover criminal history not discovered through traditional means, offers extra protection to aid in meeting industry guidelines, and helps prevent fraud" (www.hirease.com/fingerprinting).
Hirease is the company that performs background checks for Uber. Sterling Infosystems is the company that does the same for Lyft. Both companies have gaps in states they are able to search, the report says: Hirease's "national criminal search" (Uber) does not include Delaware, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Sterling Infosystems' "state criminal records search" does not cover California, Louisiana, Mississippi or Wyoming.
"Houston is absolutely right to raise the alarm over Uber's and Lyft's inadequate background checks," said Dave Sutton, spokesperson for the 'Who's Driving You?' campaign. "These corporations are routinely underinvesting in proper criminal background checks. Cities have every right to say, 'Enough is enough,' and put these companies on notice that safety, not corporate business profits, comes first."
City Of Houston's Administration & Regulatory Affairs Department Has Issued
A Scathing White Paper Criticizing Uber's And Lyft's Background Checks.
Despite assurances from TNCs that commercial background companies conduct criminal background checks at least comparable to the ones run by municipalities, but usually even more thorough, in fact these background checks are incomplete. Following are the specific deficiencies in these private criminal history checks:
Hirease "national criminal search"check does not include Delaware, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Wyoming
Sterling Infosystems "state criminal records search" does not cover California, Louisiana, Mississippi or Wyoming
Do not search every county creating potential gaps
DO NOT use truly unique search identifiers, i.e. fingerprints
Many are name based, or they use the basic identifiers used for credit checks, i.e. social security numbers, past counties of residence, voter records. These are basically skip trace and credit check companies.
Because they do not use a biometric identifier, these companies miss applicants that use aliases. For example, a recent TNC driver, who had been cleared by Hirease, underwent a City of Houston fingerprint background check and it turned out she had 24 alias names, 5 listed birth dates, 10 listed social security numbers, and an active warrant for arrest.
Even Hirease, the company that performs commercial third party background checks for Uber, admits that fingerprint based checks are more secure because "fingerprinting helps uncover criminal history not discovered through traditional means, offers extra protection to aid in meeting industry guidelines, and helps prevent fraud" (www.hirease.com/fingerprinting).
In the three months since Houston's ordinance became effective, the City's fingerprint based FBI background check found that several applicants for TNC driver's licenses who had already been cleared through a commercial criminal background check, had prior criminal histories. The charges include indecent exposure, DWI, possession of a controlled substance, prostitution, fraud, battery, assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, possession of marijuana, theft, sale of alcohol to a minor, traffic of counterfeit goods, trademark counterfeit, possession of narcotics, and driving with a suspended license
TNCs may have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to criminal history of any kind, however, that policy is hard to enforce when the background check fails to identify the criminal record.
The background checks conducted by firms such as Hirease and Sterling are NOT true national checks. Commercial background checks are based on the personal information of the applicant, including name and social security number. These companies typically use the applicant's social security number to identify past counties of residence. The company then searches the courthouse records of these and sur-rounding counties. However, as these checks do not search every county, they create a huge potential gap where crimes go undetected.
In order to supplement these county checks, commercial background companies often rely on commercial "national databases" composed of records collected from the various state criminal record repositories. However, these databases do not contain information from all states and pale in comparison to the scope of the background check conducted by the FBI. For example, the "national criminal search" con-ducted by Hirease does not cover Delaware, Massachusetts, South Dakota, or Wyoming. The "state criminal records search" conducted by Sterling Infosystems does not cover California, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Wyoming.
The FBI provides the only true nationwide check. TNCs claim that regional processing times mean that the FBI database is not always 100% up-to-date and therefore imply that background checks conducted through the FBI cannot be trusted. However, the US Attorney General's Office concludes that the FBI database, "while far from complete, is the most comprehensive single source of criminal history information in the United States." More so, neither the TNCs nor their commercial background check providers have demonstrated that their commercial databases are immune to these same criticisms.
In fact, the US Attorney General's Office goes on to point out that "in many instances the criminal history record information available through a commercial check is not as comprehensive as an [FBI] check because many states do not make criminal history records available to commercial database compilers." Both Hirease and Sterling have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of their non-fingerprint based criminal history checks.
Commercial background check companies do not use biometric identifiers to match an applicant with his or her record. This substantially increases the twin risks of false positives (when a person with a common name is associated with another person's record) and false negatives (when a record is missed because an individual provides false identifying information).
A national taskforce compared the efficacy of name based and fingerprint based background checks using the FBI Interstate Identification Index database. The taskforce found that "based on name checks alone, 5.5 percent of the checks produced false positives and 11.7 percent resulted in false negatives." (U.S. Dept. of Justice 2006, p. 25).
TNCs may have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to criminal history of any kind; however, that policy is hard to enforce when the background check fails to identify the criminal record.
The City of Houston's TNC ordinance has been effective since November 4, 2014. In the approximately 3 months since the ordinance went into effect, the City's fingerprint based FBI background check found that several applicants for TNC driver's licenses who had passed a commercial criminal background check had a prior criminal history. The charges include indecent exposure, DWI, possession of a controlled substance, prostitution, fraud, battery, assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, possession of marijuana, theft, sale of alcohol to a minor, traffic of counterfeit goods, trademark counterfeit, and driving with a suspended license.
All criminal justice record information ultimately originates from one of four primary government sources: law enforcement agencies, the courts, corrections agencies, and prosecutors. Although commercial background check providers claim to obtain data from multiple private databases, these extra databases do not necessarily add value to the background check process.
If a single database, like the FBI database, reliably gathers information from these primary sources, then searching further databases is unnecessary and redundant. Commercial background check companies search multiple databases in order to pad their resume in comparison to the FBI's comprehensive database. Private databases may not reliably and regularly collect information from all primary sources in all states.
'Who's Driving You?' is a public-safety campaign designed to educate the public about the dangers of unlicensed transportation companies. It is an initiative of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association, an international non-profit trade association whose membership consists of 1,100 licensed transportation companies. For more information, visit www.WhosDrivingYou.org, follow us on Twitter ( @WhosDrivingYou ) and follow us on Facebook ( facebook.com/WhosDrivingYou )
