While this might seem to suck, I know from first-hand inquiries that it is not possible to allow a charitable organization such as a church, for example, that has a kitchen to allow their kitchen to be used even by one of its own members for any kind of commercial purpose, even if the church receives absolutely *NO* benefit from said use. Allowing it would jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status, so it's not allowed.
Really, if you want to be a charity, then you can't allow your resources to be used by people with commercial interests. Sucks for open source organizations that want to act as charities, and I can see it being detrimental for some donations because I know that getting a tax exemption does motivate some people to donate.
But bear in mind that if tax-exemption were really the only reason or even the primary reason why people might donate to a cause or organization that they may believe in, it's highly unlikely that something like crowdfunding would ever work, and we have plenty of evidence to show that it does.
Why should they need a special license? What kind of special skill is required when driving with a passenger, that is not required when driving solo?
The context of your question, and in particular, what you state immediately afterwards about the reason suggests to me that if you were to ask the DMV that exact question (who could give you a much more enlightening answer than I could... my own speculation is that it probably has something to do with insurance), you would probably suspect the DMV to be lying to you in whatever actual answer they gave anyways, or even at best just default to the assumption that the answer is just a cover for the notion that the different classifications of drivers licenses are actually just a money grab on the DMV's part.
Of course, they make the rules. So even if it is a money grab, the law is still on their side. If that is the case, then perhaps instead of focusing on the Uber issue, one should be investigating the underlying factors that influence it... since as long as they are in place, there's going to be a conflict.
And of course, there's the issue that even if you weren't making a profit, as long as you are giving rides to complete strangers, then technically, you are really just picking up hitchhikers.
So yeah.... I can kind of see the problem that they might have with something like Uber.
Most people who might be willing to take something that belonged to somebody else, especially if they felt the person wouldn't find out about it (or wouldn't notice until they had at least gotten away with taking it) are not likely to commit any kind of violent crime, even if not because there are limits on what kinds of immoral practices they might engage in, it could fall to the simple notion they would probably feel less likely to be able to successfully get away with such an act than one that is performed without anyone seeing them.
Most thefts are crimes of opportunity, and not associated with any kind of threat of violence.
Will the car refuse to start if the camera is obscured and the driver can't be identified?
Probably... but only if the owner cannot be reached by phone/text message.
Although I realize it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where this would actually cause problems... perhaps the developers of this tech are anticipating that the number of actual complaints which arise as a result of actual experienced difficulty will be small enough that they can still afford to lose those customers' business.
If the police want to search your phone after you have clearly told them that you do not consent to any such search, then you can sue the cop. Politely inform the cop that you are aware that such a search without a warrant would be a violation of your constitutional rights, and that if the search is carried out in spite of this, then you will hold the officer accountable for that violation. This may or may not be considered by a dickhead police officer as a a threat, but if it is, again politely remind the officer that while you're not going to try to stop him from doing his job, you are informing him that you do not consent to such a search without a warrant, and that you will not allow your rights to be violated without also taking the matter before the courts.
Even a complete asshole police officer will probably just let you go at that point... as you've made it clear that you're not going to actively try to do anything to actually stop him from doing anything that he might think he needs to do right then and there, so he won't have a convenient excuse to throw handcuffs on you, and you've only reminded him of the potential lawful consequences for doing things that he's not supposed to. He'd have to genuinely believe that he was lawfully in the right to still carry out said search... but of course, as I said, you could sue the cop afterwards.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android