The result here is a shame, but I don't blame the court too much. Lavabit screwed up big time.
Anyone running a service whose operation is likely to frustrate the authorities (even if that's not the intent, and legal and legitimate as it may be) needs to have good legal help a single phone call away from day 1.
If you don't have that, you're not serious about it.
Agreed. It's odd. Somehow the very words "Nazi" and "Hitler" have become almost unique synonyms for pure evil.
Godwin's Law has formalized this - the moment "Nazi" is mentioned in any discussion, rational debate stops and you're in the territory of moral absolutes.
For example, we can't complain about "Gestapo" tactics of the NSA - we have to call them "Stasi" tactics. Because NO MATTER WHAT THE REALITY, it can't possibly be as bad as the Nazis. By definition.
Not that Nazis weren't evil - they were every bit as horrible as their reputation.
But why are they perceived as uniquely horrible? What about Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler, or any number of historical conquerors who routinely murdered every single man, woman, and child in a captured city?
The Nazis were indeed evil, but the only thing unusual about their evil was how efficient they were at it and their proximity to the center of Western culture.
I can't think of another defeated enemy that has become so demonized.
You didn't directly answer it, but reading between the lines, you seem to be claiming that:
1) The situation is analogous to driver's licenses. But drivers licences are to protect 3rd parties from getting hit. I don't see how that is analogous - what 3rd party is endangered by Uber?
2) "Consumer protection and safely" requires that people be prevented from using the ride service they want.
But who knows better what is best for consumers than consumers themselves? You? Who gave you the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives?
Why should your opinion be considered better than the opinion of the people who want to use these services? If they get cheated, they will be the ones harmed, not you.
In any case, the normal laws against fraud and cheating still apply, regardless of any special protectionist "regulation".
Earlier you said I "sound like a disgruntled Uber or Lyft driver who is against regulation". Well, I am not. I've never driven professionally, and I don't expect I ever will. But I am against "regulation" when it is not required to protect innocent 3rd parties, and when it is a smokescreen for protection against legitimate competition.
What about you? Do you have a personal axe to grind here?
I'll ask again - why should you, who calls these services the pejorative term "Gypsy Cabs", and seems generally upset by the whole idea, have the right to tell other people what services they can and can't use?
It is NOT like a driver's license - there is no risk of harm to 3rd parties. And if there are losers, the losers will be those who choose to use the service, not the public, and not you. (Unless, of course, you are a taxi driver.)