&gt; You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh&#x27;s assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they&#x27;ve recently arrived in the country.<p>I literally said otherwise:<p>&gt; In other words, &quot;Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail.&quot;<p>Aka &quot;We should continue to use background checks as prescribed by the locally democratically elected authority even tho they can fail in some scenarios.&quot;<p>That isn&#x27;t a statement on the accuracy of those background checks and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion.<p>&gt; * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I&#x27;m paraphrasing here) &quot;Because background checks fail, it&#x27;s okay to hire convicted felons who&#x27;ve served their time and are now out of jail.&quot;.<p>&gt; Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. [Sarcasm]<p>Its a specific discussion of people who are in positions of power.<p>&gt; * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who&#x27;ve been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.<p>1) People who fail standard and normal background checks because of felonies when attempting to get a job that places them in a position of power.<p>2) You keep re-stating what I say to make it apply to a broader context than what I actually say which is simply arguing with a strawman, yet again.<p>&gt; If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check.<p>It is usual and standard to have a background check performed by fingerprinting to the standards of the city of Houston when engaging in services regulated by the city of Houston.<p>Once again, you seem to argue against a strawman for no apparent reason.<p>&gt; Sure, but that wasn&#x27;t the core of your argument. Your argument&#x27;s core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and&#x2F;or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage.<p>That has nothing to do with what I said.<p>&gt; There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.<p>That was the argument. The context was in relation to Taxi companies. Yes, the insurance burden is shifted and you just agreed with it.<p>Congratulations.<p>&gt; No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you&#x27;ve written. :)<p>1) You&#x27;ve admitted my argument that part of the cost savings is by shifting the some of the burden from Uber&#x2F;Taxi company to drivers for insurance.<p>2) You admit I&#x27;m correct that they should use normal and customary background checks used by the local democratically elected authority.<p>3) You&#x27;ve basically agreed my argument is fundamentally sound and 100% correct. Or you are lying in your most recent post.<p>4) Your entire attack on my argument is from the angle of re-writing my argument to attack a strawman.<p>&gt; Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can&#x27;t provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :)<p>Actually, you did even in your most recent post.<p>Given &quot;proper&quot; background checks in the context of skirting local regulations is determined by the locally democratically elected authority (the city of Houston) by arguing against that position, you literally said:<p>&gt; Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who&#x27;ve reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people.<p>1) You can&#x27;t actually invalidate how Houston is handling this without accusing Uber of being racist, classist, and dramatically damage to felons who have reformed.<p>2) This is due to the main difference is the fact Houston wants people fingerprinted and Uber didn&#x27;t comply.<p>3) You ignored the actual flaw in my argument (Houston would have cleared the driver I used as an example in their background check) to accuse me of being racist, classist, etc.<p>Congratulations. I just proved it using standards of evidence you are.<p><i>applauds</i>