This survey was obviously done not taking into consideration dedicated e-readers and only focuses on smartphones and tablets. There's a world of a difference between the two types of devices. I'd like to see a study done just with dedicated e-readers.

True. Money can be viewed in two ways - short term and long term. A company that wishes to maintain its reputation against any future revelations might decide to not cooperate simply because if it ever came to light it would be very bad for it - especially if there was no legal obligation to turn over the user data for a service specifically designed to protect privacy like a VPN!

But yeah - the govt. can simply block VPNs outside the country, and that would be that.

This probably holds true for local VPN providers or those run by the government itself. But any service outside Iran would see no reason to cooperate with the Iranian government.

But merely purchasing a VPN is no proof of illegal behavior. Unless the government is ALSO getting log records of what people see. But the article doesn't make any mention of that, so I assume it's not happening.

I don't have to show you evidence, because the court will decide that :) .

And I disagree. For example, just because the BJP is corrupt, does not mean that we can't take the Congress to court for corruption. It's no excuse to say "Oh, everyone's doing it!".

Sorry, that's just not how the law works.

Who is talking about him being convicted? This is about not doing proper background checks. This is not the forum to argue over whether or not he committed this particular rape. Even without it, the case against Uber stands.

If you claim that another cab company has promised STRINGENT background checks over and above the existing competition and has then let through a blatantly guilty person with a criminal record, you are most welcome to provide a reference.

Till then, au revoir!

Use it in more than one case...hmm...I wonder which other cab company that has openly promised stringent background checks has let a serial rapist through who has actually committed a crime.

Hmm......

Must be dozens right? Any references? Give me 5 such cases. Or wait. Give me just 3. Then we'll talk.

Not to mention that consumer protection laws are used thousands of times every year. So what's your case again? And I'm sorry, there's no way you can have a decent legal background if you're so ignorant of the facts. Come...show me one court case in India where the accused has been let off simply because they were booked under an arcane (but accurate) law.

You seem to be indulging in wishful thinking. If you want to give your opinion on what should be the case, you are most welcome to do so. However, I am telling you what the situation is. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

Now when it comes to what is "reasonable", that is a matter of opinion. I do not find it at all unreasonable that Uber is being sued. You see, that is the difference between facts and opinion. We can differ as to our subjective opinion of what is reasonable.

But to argue over facts is illogical. I am giving you the facts. I also happen to think it's reasonable.

Umm...yes. That IS fine. That's how the law works. And if you'd like to learn more, please read up on several court rulings which convict people for laws on the statute books even if no one has used them for a long time. I'm sorry, but your factual knowledge here is simply not in accordance with reality.

In any case, we are not talking about defunct laws here. Consumer protection laws are used in India all the time, and in every state. The fact that specific cab companies have not been sued under it is no reason to claim that these are out of date or defunct laws as implied in your original post. That is what is known as a false analogy, which doesn't work out even if we give in to the absurd proposition in the first place!

You say it's not reasonable to single out a single company. Do you even realize how that sounds? Change has to begin somewhere. You cannot put off taking someone to court by saying "Oh, but OTHERS are also breaking the law". That is so absurd.

If you get caught by the police for speeding, you cannot tell the judge that others were speeding and they didn't get caught. Don't take my word for it. Go try it and see for yourself :)

It is absolutely appropriate yes. If Uber is guilty, they can be sued. It's not a legal defence to say "Oh! Others do it too!!"

You claim it's a double standard. If so, show me where another company was taken to court for something like this, and the court found them innocent. Then you can claim double standards.

So you want to talk about "reasonableness". Excellent. Let's talk about "reasonableness". Do you think it's "reasonable" to conduct a stringent...STRINGENT...background check and let a serial rapist with a police record go through? Trust me...no court in the land will call that a "reasonable check".

Uber claims to be above the standard. Read their advertising. Their whole business model is that they are SAFER than other companies. So yeah - let's talk about "reasonableness". I'm ready.

The next time you're on a murder trial, try telling the judge "But...but...other people murder too!" See how well that works out for you.

This case is about Uber. No one gives a damn about other cab companies. The culpability of Uber is not diminished by whether or not other people are doing the same thing. Guilt is not determined by what other people do. If Uber promised stringent background checks, and then did a fuckall job with no concern to ACTUALLY conduct they checks, then they are guilty period.

This IS Uber's fault for not conducing thorough background checks as promised.

It's Uber's fault because they PROMISE to conduct background checks. So their failure to do so is misleading advertising, fraud, and, they are most definitely culpable.

Nope, it wouldn't have happened if this person used a service that ACTUALLY conducts background checks instead of promising them and not conducting them. This guy was a serial rapist and their "background check" did fuck all. So no...this wouldn't have happened to a service that did their job.

The solution is to conduct actual background checks. As the PROMISE they will.