Bars' Scanning of ID Violates BC Privacy Laws 198
AnonymousIslander writes "The Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia has ruled that electronic scanning of driver's licenses (and similar forms of ID) as a condition of entering a bar or nightclub is a violation of BC's Personal Information Privacy Act. The decision (PDF), while dealing with one specific club, will still have ramifications across the entire province. It is not known if the nightclub in question will attempt to appeal the decision in court. A similar decision was reached last year in Alberta.
The system in question is known as BarWatch, and has been the target of criticism by many for a number of years. Despite this, a number of bars/nightclubs and restaurants in communities across Canada have installed similar systems, and just days before this decision came down there were calls for the expansion of BarWatch in Victoria to cover restaurants and other establishments serving the post-bar crowds." Similar systems are in use across the US, as we have discussed.
Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Interesting)
Why did bars think this system was a necessity in the first place?
Because those boxes store the personal information of the IDs that are scanned, usually in an XLS file which are easily shared across businesses or used for selling information to third parties--that's why.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
And this, boys and girls, is why I always nuke the magstripe on my ID using a strong magnet. It's easy: Just take a small neodymium magnet (available at any hardware store or inside of any hard drive if you don't already have one), wipe it back and forth across the stripe a few times, turn it over, and do it again.
I started doing this the first time the clerk at a store swiped my ID through their register while I was buying beer and paying with cash. They (the corporation, not the clerk -- he's an alright guy) have no business recording who I am when I make a cash transaction with them.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Mine has a barcode instead of a magstrip.
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
So it has nothing to do with trying to enforce drinking ages. Instead it is just more "paper's please" government tracking of citizens.
I am sure that will make everyone there feel even better about being branded cattle...
Re:Liability (Score:2, Informative)
So it has nothing to do with trying to enforce drinking ages. Instead it is just more "paper's please" government tracking of citizens.
I am sure that will make everyone there feel even better about being branded cattle...
Nope, that all came after the Privacy Commissioner did his investigation. Originally the police were all about this how it would help them track down gangs and the clubs were all about how this would help them fend off repeat trouble makers.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
If there are repeat troublemakers at the same club then maybe the bouncers need better training. Also clubs (and police) can work together to ensure that trouble makers can be identified by people working in clubs (and hopefully put where they belong). Without hassling every customer.
Re:Liability (Score:2, Insightful)
It's mostly to do with Asian and East Indian gangs, and it's only in certain, known bars where they hang out (bars that have "gone Asian", in local parlance). Before the mass immigration of the '90s, stuff like this was unknown here, and we existed in a naively happy bubble.
And this is not a troll, by the way. BC has changed a lot, and not for the better, even though it's "evil" to say so.
- posting anon to avoid the beating I'll get from PC people
Re:Liability (Score:5, Informative)
Many Greater Vancouver residents blame certain visible minorities for most of the crimes in their communities, but police and academics say the statistical evidence contradicts such racial stereotypes.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Ipsos Reid poll believe some ethnic groups are more responsible for crime than others, and they put Indo-Canadian and Asians at the top of their lists....
In an interview Tuesday, Vancouver Police Insp. Kash Heed, commanding officer of the department's district 3 -- southeast Vancouver -- said actual statistics show the reverse of the poll findings.
"In the Lower Mainland, the majority of crimes are committed by Caucasians," he said.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6e62449a-b98a-4387-ad58-bf41461a1048&k=41287
lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:2)
the majority of crimes are commited by whites...
Perhaps because they are the majority?
The capatalist United States spends more on social security then the socialist Netherlands. Well duh, 360 million people vs 16 million.
You can make numbers say almost anything if you are not careful.
If say morocans (the dutch problem minority) commit 100.000 crimes and the dutch commit 1.000.000 then you would foolishly claim that the dutch are more criminal. Two problems. The dutch figure would include some morocans as A: dutch police does not record ethnicity for its statistics B: some dutch are also morocans.
But the real killer is that morocans are less then 5% of the population. So, lets say there are 1 million muslims in holland and you would have accurate figures saying that they commitied 100.000 crimes. You would also know that there are 15 million non-muslims and they commited 1.000.000 crimes. Then you could totally tell the truth and say that non-muslims commit more crimes... but that ain't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
In fact, recent studies have shown that crime figures in holland are indeed higher. Of course, these figures were disputed but again, the figures themselves don't tell the whole story. For instance, police are not allowed to collect racial information for their statistics. So, if you report a crime and say the person was black and the crime is never solved, that crime does NOT show in statisics. Oh and you can argue till you are blue in the face about racism, but since most anti-racist seem destperate to stop any attempt to finding out what is REALLY happening, we are now stuck with a world-wide perception that ALL immigrants are trouble and the powers-that-be are unwilling to do anything about.
And that sir, is damned close to what happened at the beginning of last century. The fact and figures might be different but the sentiments are the same.
And NO, you are NOT helping. The anti-racists need to start talking TRUTH rather then try to push their dream world onto everyone else.
because the simple truth about immigrant crime figures is this: They corrolate 100% with poverty based crime figures.
The immigrant areas are just new names for the slum areas. I am old enough to remember when the bad sections of towns were white. The residents also spoke their own language (slang if you like) only then it was "plat amsterdams" ("flat old amsterams"). The effect was the same, if you were born on the wrong side of town, it was hard to move out and crime was often an easy option.
The white moves up and the immigrants moved into the vacant spot taking up the jobs left vacant. Cleaner, hooker, thief.
Go ahead, look up the figures and you will see this is true.
Of course there is one problem, this problem can't be solved. Raise the living standards of the current immigrants and more will move in. Partly because society needs people to be at the bottom (where else are you going to get your 10 dollar car radio) and partly because no matter how bad it might seem to us, the western bottom is still better then the bottom in a lot of the rest of the world.
So the truth is, these crime figures are part of life and you can't do anything about it. Not a message either left or right can use in an election.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
It's mostly to do with Asian and East Indian gangs,
So, what's your point precisely? That only caucasians should have the right of privacy? I really can't figure out what your post has to do with markdavis's post about "papers please" that you responded to.
- posting anon to avoid the beating I'll get from PC people
Lol, so you do think that asians don't deserve the right of privacy. Thanks for clearing it up.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Well, to racist whites, all gooks or niggers look the same, so scanning the IDs would recognize those who would need to recognized
Not Government (Score:2)
Except it isn't done by the government, it's done by a private corporation.
Flip this around - you own a small bar, should you have the right to refuse entry to people who are likely to cause violence? It's your property, right? And in order to verify identity, shouldn't you be able to request that the person supply some ID? After all, they're free to say no and go elsewhere.
Re:Not Government (Score:2)
>Flip this around - you own a small bar, should you have the right to refuse entry to people who are likely to cause violence? It's your property, right?
I could flip it around too....
As a bar/store/business owner, should you have the "right" to refuse entry to people who:
1) are of a certain color?
2) are a certain sexual orientation?
3) are of a particular religion?
4) are of a particular political party?
5) are wearing clothing?
6) have speeding tickets?
7) have done jail time?
8) don't allow you to search their person?
9) don't allow a DNA sample?
10) don't have a certain bank account balance?
11) live in a certain part of town?
12) are registered to own a gun?
Just something to think about. "Private" business controls our freedom and lives every bit as much as the government. Perhaps more.
As for your second part:
>And in order to verify identity, shouldn't you be able to request that the person supply some ID?
If there is a minimum age requirement, you can verify their age. But that does not require knowing their identity, just their age. And it doesn't require keeping records of it.
Re:Not Government (Score:2)
"Identity" isn't much help in knowing if someone is likely to cause violence. Recognising them as a "trouble maker" from a previous visit or even "gut instinct" is a better guide. Having them produce a document which tells you which type of cars they can drive is probably at best a waste of time, especially since they wouldn't be that good a customer if they intended driving away from your bar...
Re:Liability (Score:2)
You are incredibly correct. This is another reason many are "cattle"....
The vast majority of people couldn't care less about privacy or freedom. That is, until it is lost- and by then it is usually too late.
Each generation successively gives up a little more freedom and privacy in the name of "safety".
Re:Liability (Score:4, Interesting)
The ID scan itself is already of shaky legal status, but the most troubling issue here is that the ID information from the scan (name, address, etc) is retained by the club in a private database.
I have received junk mail as result of my ID being scanned at a night club in PA. Luckily that night club has since closed and I no longer receive it. Ironically, they had to close because of fines from serving too many underage drinkers over time. They also lost business because of regular police raids. Who wants to keep going to a club where there buzz is killed from a police raid.
Re:Liability (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The ID scan is to identify persons known to police in a database and refuse them services
Illegal search by the government without warrant.
Re:Liability (Score:3, Informative)
Illegal search by the government without warrant.
Only if the clubs in BC were run by the government, and the card was not surrendered voluntarily.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
If this BarScan program is *mandated* by the government, then effectively the bars are being run by the government. And that makes it an illegal search without warrant.
Aside-
I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the United States you only need to show your drivers license if you are physically inside a car. If you're just walking down a street, a cop cannot make you show your drivers license, because you're not driving. Nor can they force you to show an ID without warrant/probable cause.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
And presumably in the driver's seat and on a public road. Or can a "passenger license" be required as well?
If you're just walking down a street, a cop cannot make you show your drivers license, because you're not driving.
A pedestrian isn't required to have one, either on their person or even at all...
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Not sure whats Illegal in the search? If I consent, the police can legally search anything I own. I assume the only issue is using a state ID to achieve the purpose, and by a private company, and retaining the information without proper disclosure. I sure hope a bar is allowed to retain photos of those arrested/banned from their private property, and use that information to prevent re-entry/trespass. I would further say, expanding this system so that clubs can further protect themselves, and sharing this with other private clubs sure makes sense to me, especially in a area known to have issues. Although I only know US laws and that all Vegas casinos deploy a similar system, legally I assume. The only difference is they have deployed it using only video cameras, and people to do the identifications.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
A bar, restaurant, homeowner, or any other private place can demand ID as a condition of entry (or refuse service), but once you are inside the building they can't suddenly decide, "We changed our minds. We want your ID."
If they've allowed you to enter without ID then they must allow you to leave without showing ID as well.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
strange laws, completely different than in the US.
un-related to the original story though which is about recording your id at entry. No reason to then re-check, like happens to me in the US constantly.
So how does a country club work, legally? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently I can't just walk into any ol' country club. I have to show my membership card. I get my membership card by applying. Part of the application process is showing some form of ID, another part is laying down a bunch of moneys, being in good standing, blabla.
How come that is legal, then?
As a result - and I know the answer is 'no', but I'm curious as to -why- it is 'no' - couldn't any ol' bar simply offer 'guest membership' by means of, say, a stamp / wrist band, where the 'membership process' includes showing some form of ID, costs the patron, say, $2 (which goes toward a complimentary membership drink), and the membership duration lasting the entirety of the patron's stay?
Re:So how does a country club work, legally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently I can't just walk into any ol' country club. I have to show my membership card. I get my membership card by applying. Part of the application process is showing some form of ID, another part is laying down a bunch of moneys, being in good standing, blabla.
How come that is legal, then?
As a result - and I know the answer is 'no', but I'm curious as to -why- it is 'no' - couldn't any ol' bar simply offer 'guest membership' by means of, say, a stamp / wrist band, where the 'membership process' includes showing some form of ID, costs the patron, say, $2 (which goes toward a complimentary membership drink), and the membership duration lasting the entirety of the patron's stay?
Part of the answer is, we give country clubs far less grief than they're due, because many of their members are influential. And they still catch hell when they enforce membership rules that are very obviously racist, though that happens less often than you might think.
However, in this specific case, you're comparing apples and oranges - the situation in BC is not akin to a country club barring non-members. Once the law gets involved in a situation like this (which it did, since they were tying the scans to police databases), the system becomes subject to legal oversight. Cops, legislators and the like are bound by higher laws concerning basic rights for the people, which were very obviously being violated here.
Re:So how does a country club work, legally? (Score:2)
couldn't any ol' bar simply offer 'guest membership'
Well sure, but then they'd lose impulse business brought in by foot traffic.
Re:So how does a country club work, legally? (Score:4, Informative)
Legally, the difference between a bar and a country club is that the bar is what is frequently referred to as a semi-public space [wikipedia.org]. That is, it is private property, but is open to the general public. Restaurants, shops, etc. typically fall into this category.
Owners of semi-public spaces do have some rights to control their property (e.g. enforcing a rule that they'll kick you out of the store if you don't buy anything, or a movie theater not allowing kids into a theater hall that is currently showing an R-rated film). However, they have fewer rights over the property than owners of private spaces do (e.g. they can't prevent someone from entering solely based on their race).
A country club is typically a fully private space--while there are procedures for gaining access, the general public is excluded. A bar is a semi-public space--there is a general expectation that it is "open to the public" (subject to legal age restrictions). Your proposal of "membership" might be seen as an attempt to make a bar a letter-of-the-law private space. IANAL, but I'd expect it to fail in one of two ways:
1) Someone could legitimately argue that the temporary "membership" is basically a farce and the bar is still a semi-public space, since the general public can--and, indeed, is desired to--still access it by gaining trivial membership.
2) There may be zoning restrictions involved. Bars are frequently located in commercial zones; cities may require any businesses operating in the area to be semi-public.
Re:So how does a country club work, legally? (Score:2)
Because judges belong to country clubs and don't want the undesirables to be there.
Re:Here is the local media story (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here is the local media story (Score:2)
"There is no rational justification for why retention of all of this data from everyone who comes into the club.⦠There really isn't," said Vonn.
I love how he thinks just repeating this over and over will make it true even though they already said why it was necessary. Definitely lawyer think. I honestly hope cooler heads prevail and they keep the scanners. Here's an idea if you don't want your id scanned don't go to places that do it. Or choose to act in a civilized manner. They should not be selling the data but working with police and other public records systems seems perfectly reasonable and necessary to me.
Re:Liability (Score:2, Informative)
Its used in Vancouver to keep the gang bangers out, because right now they are all at war to take control of the blossoming drug trade. In Victoria its used to keep out the small cadre of drunks an malcontents who go from bar to bar to bar just getting more drunk. Its a private bar. If you don't like the fact that you have to provide ID then dont go. You dont have a right to go to the bar. no bar owner gives a shit who you are demographically, they care if you have already been tossed out of another bar this eveining for being a drunk dickhead.
We have an explosion of people in BC who wont accept any responsibility for being dumb. You don't have a right to go out, get drunk, piss on the doorway of someones downtown business, or start keying someones car because you don't like the way it works, or a hundred other complaints we get every weekend evening here.
And i mean here, because i live in Victoria. we just don't have a drunk tank big enough to deal with all of the late night idiots. We are pushing some of the responsibility back on the bars, and this is what they came up. The data is encrypted so its not easy to get to.
Too bad if you think you right to privacy has been violated. GO HOME AND SOBER UP
Re:Liability (Score:2)
All that would be likely to happen would be that black market gun dealers would also provide fake ID documents.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
that should be as far as it needs to go
Yup. And most bars know that as far as I know. This is how under-aged people get in so easily, and bars get away with it. They check the age, and the quality of the card. They don't really care if it is real or not.
These guys scanning are scanning to retain information. If they weren't, then they're working too hard for no return.
Re:Liability (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Re:Liability (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Liability (Score:3, Interesting)
How about issues like people on parole who are not allowed to enter bars? It seems to me that there is no downside to anyone having information and it is not just bars that should be using this technology. How about gas stations running checks on people that buy gasoline? How many felons could be caught by use of such technology?
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Better yet, let's implant everyone with a gps tracker at birth, that way we can monitor everybody to make sure they're always where they're supposed to be.
You're either a troll or a 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' fool whose tolerance to this sort of thing is stripping the country of civil liberties and leading down the road to a police state.
People around here might assume 'troll', but I've had conversations with people who think everything in the OP, and everything I said above, is ok. They were dead serious, they really thought security takes precedence over privacy regardless of how invasive.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
We don't have felons in Canada, at that I think the rest of the world has left behind that relic of feudalism.
We also think that there is a downside to people having private information taken and even have a thing in our charter of rights about unreasonable searches which includes bars and gas stations trolling for information which they share.
Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bars personally really don't give a shit about the client's ID. They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault and not the fakers. So obviously they have to implement fascist mechanisms of ID checking, otherwise they'd be forced out of business by the government.
Now the same government goes around and says their ID checking is too strict (while obviously not alleviating any of the burdens which it imposed on bars on checking IDs in the first place). Hey government geniuses, if you'd like bar owners to not violate their client's privacy, maybe relaxing your age-proving rules would be a good place to start?
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:2)
They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault and not the fakers.
Please cite the relevant law or court ruling.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eia.gov.bc.ca/lclb/licensing/laws.htm#id_requirements
1/2 true.
2 pieces of government ID required to enter any bar, there are signs up ALL over the place in BC telling you about this.
Minor with fake id, $115 fine for the minor.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:3, Interesting)
You've really never heard of strict liability in relation to the underage consumption of alcohol? Have you heard of google?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22strict+liability%22+sale+alcohol [lmgtfy.com]
Here's one example, from California, in the first page of Google hits:
http://law.onecle.com/california/business/25658.html [onecle.com]
Which was enacted in 1998 and upheld in court by 2002.
And that's far from the only example. Many jurisdictions have even enacted strict liability laws against private-residence underage consumption -- where simply "failing to prevent" underage consumption is a crime, even if you didn't provide the alcohol, or did not have reason to believe that it would be consumed by underage individuals.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:2)
We're talking about Canada. I've never heard of a bar which showed diligence in checking ID being busted or successfully sued for serving an underage drinker.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just use Google:
http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/2009/06/02/bars-pay-price-for-underage-drinking [dailyillini.com]
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20282532,00.html [people.com]
http://hawkonomics.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-city-bar-restrictions.html [blogspot.com]
And that was just the beginning. Bars get shut down for serving underage people. It doesn't matter if they check the IDs or not - if they are fooled by a fake ID they can be shut down. It is almost never the underage person's fault, and even when they are charged, it is a fine and little else.
For the bar owner, it can result in the loss of the business.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps I should have been more clear about what to cite.
None of those links are relevant to this case, as IL, NY, and IA are not in British Columbia, Canada.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:2)
I stand by the notion that anything that involves two people is public information. In the strict sense only that which remains only in one's own mind can be considered private.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:5, Funny)
[citation_needed]
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/chevrolet-citation-3.jpg [howstuffworks.com]
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:4, Informative)
Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault
[citation_needed]
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1322917.html?storylink=omni_popular [kansascity.com]
Holiday was fined $500 by the Kansas Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. His customer was arrested in March 2008 for being a minor in possession of alcohol and for presenting police with a fake driver's license. He paid $452 in fines and court fees.
Holiday being the bar owner.
P.S. You really should check out this new site called Google [google.com]. It lets you confirm such simple queries in less time than it takes to type the question (0.12 seconds in this case) instead of asking on a forum and having to wait minutes to hours for a reply.
Re:Between a rock and a hard place? (Score:4, Funny)
Since when did Kansas City become a part of Canada?
P.S. You should check out this new site called Google Maps [slashdot.org]. It lets you find things geographically (hint: Canada is North... that's up).
Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws? (Score:2)
Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws? (Score:2)
My question is why is the government forcing people to carry their personal data in a manner that is not secure?
You do realize that all the information on the magnetic strip has always been available in written form on the front, correct? Without the magnetic strip the process would likely be slightly more time consuming, and slightly more costly requiring a OCR of the ID first. The magnetic strip would make it slightly more difficult for fake ID makers as well (ok, just means they need to be somewhat hi-tech.)
Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws? (Score:2)
Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws? (Score:2)
This is about Canada, the bars are not keeping these records to prove they checked that underage drinkers ID. They're keeping it in case you piss off a bouncer, maybe hit on their girl friend, maybe get rowdy. Then sharing it with all the other bars to make sure you can't drink anywhere.
In theory not a bad idea. In practice... especially if they keep all these records indefinitely and perhaps sell them.
Verify My Ass. This is data mining pure & simp (Score:2)
Re:Verify My Ass. This is data mining pure & s (Score:2)
The same thing happens in Australia.
We have places that Record your ID, Take photo and video, take a voice print and fingerprint scan.
Privacy indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You mean that keeping records of people intending to drink alcohol, the time, the location, who you might be going with, and hold onto that information for some unknown time, and share that information with unknown people or organizations.... you mean doing that could be considered a violation of an individual's privacy??
It still amazes me that people that live in countries that supposedly support an individual's rights allow themselves to be treated like branded cattle this way.
To the legislators that create such stuff, and to the people who support such legislation: Keep on waxing that slippery slope...
Re:Privacy indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, if I am running a bar I am scanning/Xeroxing the license. If you get charged with serving the underage, and you *don't* have a scan, you are dead in the water. You need proof that you had an ID that checked out. Period. If you don't want to provide an ID, there are plenty of places to get drunk aside from bars.
Brett
Re:Privacy indeed (Score:2)
Perhaps the police should then rely on good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to force a police state where private businesses are required to do it for them.
Undercover agents can "test" bars and fine them severely. That should be enough. Liability on the part of bars should be limited to what is "reasonable". Scanning or copying ID's is simply not acceptable.
Re:Privacy indeed (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with saving the police work, it's saving your own ass when you get accused. The crime is serving alcohol to minors. If you are accused of serving alcohol to a minor, and you in fact did because they have a fake ID, you had damn well better be able to prove they had it and defrauded *you*, otherwise, you are stuck.
Brett
Re:Privacy indeed (Score:2)
If you read the posts above about strict liability, it doesn't mean shit if you can prove that they gave you a fake id. The bar owner is still fucked. And good luck taking the kid to court, I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze lots of money out of them for 'defrauding' you.
The OP's point stands - the government has placed unreasonable requirements on bar owners making them essentially an extension of law enforcement. Those requirements are not compatible with a free society.
Re:Privacy indeed (Score:2)
We're talking about Canada, not the States. Here I believe that as long as the bar showed due diligence in checking ID they are not responsible for under age drinking. And yes the liquor control board does test bars to make sure they do show due diligence and they will lose their licence if they don't.
Re:Privacy indeed (Score:2)
Actually, retention doesn't matter. If the information is collected, a citizen can not be guaranteed ANYTHING after that point. It is just like being fingerprinted. It doesn't matter if you are cleared of a crime, they will be retained "forever". Every time they run prints, yours will be "searched", without probable cause. Even if there is a law requiring them to be "removed" from a database, you can be very assured that they are still retained in the hands of some type of agency.
In an era dominated by cheap almost limitless storage, tons of computing power, and fast networks, once information is collected, the game is over. "Guarantees" about how that information will be used, by whom, and for how long are pretty much meaningless. Call me paranoid if you like, but I have had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to many people for many years...
bar needs only one yes/no: is person = legal (Score:2, Insightful)
a bar needs one question answered:
is person older than legal drinking age. period.
they dont need name, age, address, hair color, who you arrived with, weight, etc.
Re:bar needs only one yes/no: is person = legal (Score:4, Interesting)
hair color...weight
Yes, they do. In fact, they need an actual photo of you. So they can confirm that you are the person on the card.
Now, what should happen is that your address shouldn't be on the driver's license at all.
The police should be able to pull that out of the DL database, and no one else has the right to know where you live. That, frankly, is an idiotic holdover from when police did not have databases, and should have gone away mid-nineties. (If someone has a legitimate need to know where you live, for example if went to a bar and skipped on on your tab...that's what small claims court is for.)
Same with age, that should not be on a license, except underaged people should have that clearly marked on their DL. Although it should just be an 'Under 18' or 'Under 21' unless they specifically want their birthday on there. Same with elderly people, who could have 'Over 55' or whatever on their license if they want.
I wouldn't go in anyway (Score:4, Funny)
I am not a number, I am a free customer!
You will treat me as such, or I will take my custom elsewhere.
Re:I wouldn't go in anyway (Score:2)
you may just find yourself not having anywhere else to go, unless you really don't care what kind of music/scene is going on.
Those who would give up essential freedom for a little temporary music and scenery deserve neither.
What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll support this decision when the laws concerning kids change.
Here are two dangerous scenarios, both of which take place in an age-restricted venue.
#1) You go home with the cute girl. You don't worry about this person's age since the legal age of the venue is 18 (Quebec), 19 (rest of Canada), or 21 (USA). Well, turns out you were wrong, and now you're a branded sex offender for life. Your only recourse is to sue the bar to oblivion for not doing its job filtering out the kids, forcing the bar to start being more strict, including scanning IDs.
#2) You just got paid, feeling generous, go out to a bar, vibe is good and everyone is having a fun time. Your table of friends somehow merges with another table of strangers and everyone is getting along. So, you buy shots of vodka for everyone in celebration of such a great night. Only then, the police do a spot check on the bar, find out you bought alcohol for a minor, and get thrown in jail. Your only recourse is to sue the bar to oblivion for not doing its job filtering out the kids, forcing the bar to start being more strict, including scanning IDs.
When you're in an age restricted venue, that does not allow you to be innocent when you do something that somehow "violates" a minor that's also in the same venue. When the laws that facilitate this "guilt" change, then maybe I'll care a little more about the "privacy implications" of a bouncer being able to truly verify the age of an incoming customer.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
I'll support this decision when the laws concerning kids change.
Here are two dangerous scenarios, both of which take place in an age-restricted venue.
#1) You go home with the cute girl. You don't worry about this person's age since the legal age of the venue is 18 (Quebec), 19 (rest of Canada), or 21 (USA). Well, turns out you were wrong, and now you're a branded sex offender for life. Your only recourse is to sue the bar to oblivion for not doing its job filtering out the kids, forcing the bar to start being more strict, including scanning IDs.
In Canada feel free to have sex with any girl who's over 16. But you'll be thrown in jail if you take photos. For photos, you've got to wait until she's 19. But sex, no problem at 16! Oh and they just moved that up from 14 a couple of years ago...
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Actually for scenario #1, there was a famous case back in the 50's IIRC where a guy picked up a minor in a bar. Believed that she was of age, she was in a bar at a time when the drinking age was 21. Got caught fucking her and charged with statutory rape. The judge was very apologetic as he sentenced the poor guy to 5 years but the law was the law.
Anyways after this they changed the law so that believing the girl was of age was a valid defence.
Of course I wouldn't be too surprised if the law had been changed again recently, got to think of the children you know.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
#1) It can happen anywhere, but it should never happen in an age-restricted venue. You should be completely free of guilt because you should assume that anyone in an age-restricted venue is an "adult". That is simply not the case.
#2) The bar didn't serve the minor, you paid for it, the bar served you and then you passed it on to a minor, and in this scenario, you did so for free.
Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the comments on this story so far (about a dozen) are in support of customer privacy.
In contrast, last week, most of the comments on a similar story about Canadian privacy law were in favor of the business. In that case, though, the business itself was online (Facebook), whereas in this case, the business is brick & mortar & alcohol, and only the data is online.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/1346209/Facebook-Violates-Canadian-Privacy-Law [slashdot.org]
Do you, the Slashdot reader, have a different opinion about these two cases because of the case differences? Or did the posters of all of last Friday's comments go on vacation this week?
Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:2)
Yeah, Facebook sucks and is very morons, and scanning peoples' IDs at bars sucks and is nothing more than a blatant and liberty-hating attempt to destroy our rights.
Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:2)
There is a huge difference between the two cases. The Facebook case was about a website allowing others to view information voluntarily posted by its members. You aren't required to post any personal information to have a Facebook page. You can even use a fake name.
In this situation, you are required to hand over your driver's license and have a lot of personal information scanned as a requirement for purchasing a drink.
I can't speak for the entire "Slashdot community", but I'm actually more opposed to the laws that push bars into this kind of intrusive behavior in the first place. In many states and provinces, bars owners and managers can be charged criminally (never mind just losing their liquor license) for serving anyone under age even if they present a valid-looking fake id. Absent such laws, the marketplace would probably discourage bars from scanning licenses, as people probably would prefer not to give up such personal information. But because of these laws, it's hard to find bars that don't engage in that practice, and once scanned, they can sell your information in secret and you'd never know which bar did so. So I'd be all in favor of letting the bars put whatever silly requirements they want as a condition of entry, but let's get rid of the draconian laws which encourage bars to collectively implement such measures.
Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:2)
Aren't the bar patrons voluntarily supplying their personal information when they hand their ID over to the bouncer with a scanner?
Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:2)
You cannot get into the bar in most cases without handing it over to be scanned. To reference the comparison to online privacy, you do not need to provide your driver license number (or anything personal info) to FB to "get in". Also, FB, in a perfect world, would be be able to use that information to help you relate to people, while all the bar is using it for is to log people's activities. /.'ers probably don't like the idea of being tracked by non-voluntarily databases, not the idea of voluntarily handing over information.
Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:2)
The bar is only a semi-private area. With that liquor license and being open to the public the bar loses certain rights, like refusing service for no good reason.
If the bar owner doesn't like it he should never have applied for the license and opened his doors to the public.
Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy (Score:2)
Ya know some of those scanners can be used to steal your credit card numbers. So you hand them your ID with your social security number encoded on the strip. Then at the end of the night you hand them your credit card which also gets swiped.
Then the Bubba the bouncer or Bert the barman put these two pieces of data together and steal your Identity.
Its not about AGE restrictions! (Score:5, Informative)
Some of you are perhaps missing some information regarding this case.
The id's were being taken not because of age issues, it was due to a rash of gang violence in vancouver and the lower mainland of BC. The bars decided to start scanning peoples IDs and running them against a police/RCMP database. This in turn, it was hoped, would keep people with active warrants and such from frequenting bars and causing a ruckus.
As other have pointed out, it has been somewhat effective as there has not been any shooting in clubs downtown (insert tiger rock analogy here). The downside is that all these innocent people have to submit to police state type actions in order to go to MOST bars in downtown vancouver (mostly on granville st, club district).
I myself have been denied entrance for asking too many questions regarding data storage policies and complaining about the system. Most people do not seem to care and will hand over their DL as well as be photographed. I have watched many people hand over ID without a second thought. They scan the mag stripe and put it into their private database. How long do they keep the data? I do not know, as I was escorted out for asking that and other questions.
THis is a real win for privacy in BC. If you read the CBC fourms however, you can see that many so called citizens do not care two shits about privacy as long as they have their preacious illusion of security.
Re:Its not about AGE restrictions! (Score:2)
>>>you can see that many so called citizens do not care two shits about privacy as long as they have their preacious illusion of security.
Well as I just said in another post, they WILL care when the experience Identity Theft because Bubba the bouncer and Bert the barman took the swiped ID and the swiped credit card & combined them together to become Sally the sorority girl (or some other customer).
Then I suppose these idiot citizens will want to cry and blame everyone else, except themselves.
Re:Its not about AGE restrictions! (Score:2)
Re:Its not about AGE restrictions! (Score:2)
Read the post directly above yours. In brief - they can gather information off the black strip of your drivers license, combine it with your credit card, and commit Identity Theft.
Keep the Idiots out. (Score:2, Insightful)
The system is designed to inform all bars who have the system that someone has been banned. The simplest way to do it is to use drivers license numbers as they are unique to each person. Now one may say that they should only track the license numbers of individuals who cause issue but just think about trying to get that number as you are throwing someone out. You also have to check to see if they are banned as they come in.
As for miss-use of the information, there are plenty of civil and criminal penalties to make that not worth the risk.
Re:Keep the Idiots out. (Score:3, Interesting)
And what happens when some bartender/server/bar owner has a grudge against someone and throws them on the banned list out of spite? Now somebody who is perfectly innocent can't get into any of the bars in Victoria.
Re:Keep the Idiots out. (Score:2, Interesting)
just think about trying to get that number as you are throwing someone out.
Out of curiosity... how do they get that information off the person being thrown out to know which of the hundreds of patrons that came in that night make the 'banned' list? Wouldn't the person actually need to get arrested, such that the information on the list is retrieved from the police?
Re:Keep the Idiots out. (Score:2)
Why use drivers licenses?
If bars want a system like this why not have some form of membership card?
People can then use that card on the bar/club network.
WTF.....? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've worked at a couple of bars here in the US and we scanned ids. But, the scanners we used were small, portable handheld units that just read the magstripe to see in the data contained in the magstripe matched the information printed on the front of the card. The only contact with the outside world that the unit had was the tiny AC power cord used to charge the batteries.
I can see the benefits of scanning cards, as it is very easy to duplicate DLs. However, I don't see how you need to completely read someone's info and feed it into an online database just to check their age.
In the US, if a counterfeit ID that can fool any reasonable person is used to illegally purchase alcohol, and the bar serves the alcohol, the person who made the purchase is held fully accountable, and not the bar. This protects bars from having to worry about every single ID being counterfeit, as counterfeiters are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
I think the system of electronic scanners that just verify magstripe data with printed data on the front of the card is sufficient, since a counterfeit card that looks legit AND fools scanners will also fool any resonable person.
I don't see where Little Brother Canada thinks that everybody should have to punch in to a database whenever they want to go out for a night on the town.
Re:WTF.....? (Score:2)
"I don't see where Little Brother Canada thinks that everybody should have to punch in to a database whenever they want to go out for a night on the town."
Actually, the story is about Canada deciding that everybody should NOT have to punch in to a database whenever they want to go out for a night on the town.
That country down below however, has not.
Re:WTF.....? (Score:2)
Speaking of counterfeit IDs in Utah,
I lived in Utah for a year or two during high school and remember back in 1998-99 where people were breaking into DMVs and stealing cameras, printers, and paper because they couldn't replicate the holograms and stuff. I suppose now that technology has advanced that criminals are able to replicate the holograms and stuff on their own without having to steal supplies.
Just Plain Stupid (Score:2)
Re:Just Plain Stupid (Score:2)
Did you even read the summary? The privacy laws are just fine with looking at someone's drivers licence to confirm their age. I expect they're also probably fine with scanning the barcode to make sure the information lines up. What the court has said is not okay is scanning everybody's license, storing the data in a private database and matching it up with police databases.
This sounds like a great idea... (Score:3, Funny)
After all, it's not as though I've never encountered a bouncer who's a rage-driven, 'roid-crazed whack job with delusions of adequacy, a two-figure IQ, and an ironclad belief that every woman in the world desperately wants access to his shrunken little dick. Exactly the kind of person I want having access to my sister's personal information. And if there's ever been a "security system" in a bar that couldn't be defeated in five minutes by a bartender with a Grade 8 education and a weakness for white powder, I've yet to see it. So I wouldn't be all that confident that the twitchy little guy in the corner with the laptop and the Klingon Vengeance Blade isn't paging through the personal data of everybody on the premises even as I try to hide my "Trekkies Are Assholes" t-shirt.
The day I surrender the contents of anything on a mag strip to the lack-wits, thieves and bottom feeders who infest your average bar is the day I move to Iran and stand on a street corner with a megaphone and invite Ali Khamenei to blow me.
It really depends where you want to go... (Score:2)
I don't really have an issue with it as I don't have to patronize those bars if I don't want to.
No simple answers (Score:2)
You can of course choose to live in a dream world where everyone should be free and is free and that just works.
In reality, bars have two problems.
A: Minimum legal age for drinking in a bar. As a society we seem to want this enforced rather then leaving it up to the individual to handle their own freedom responsible. Crazy I know. Surely 12yr olds are mature enough? Because a law without bards has no meaning and we are to wishy washy to lock up underage drinkers we created a REALLY odd situation in that someone else has become responsible for stopping others from breaking the law. Think about it, are car-makers responsible for checking that drivers of their cars have a valid driving license?
So, bars have to make sure their patrons are of legal age and if they fail to check, they can be held accountable. This is odd. Say I am a drunk driver, I drive along and the police fails to spot me and then I kill someone because of being drunk. Is the police then fined for having failed to spot me? No. So why is a bar fined for having failed to spot I am not of legal age?
Over the years in holland the check in supermarkets for selling beer has gone from not at all (we kids were often send to return an empty crate, get a new one and we could keep the deposit money for candy) to a visual check of the person, to asking for ID if in doubt to IDing everyone presumed to be below 20 (minimum age is 16 and being raised to 18).
And how do you prove you asked for an ID and that you had reason to believe it was legit? By making a copy. How do you make a copy without taking down LOTS of private information? Clerks are not specialists on identification of legal documents. That is why they have a scanner to check for false money (which by the way wasn't neccesary when we still had our own money that was extremely hard to fake, thank you EU and Mr Zalm, who said we had to trust him and then became head of a bank that is now under investigation but that is different rant).
Either we want our freedom to not have to ID ourselves when getting a drink and ACCEPT that it is a teens own responsibility to not try to drink before they are legal (yeah right) or we give up our freedom in exchange for protecting teens from themselves.
B: Keeping out underiables. This sounds a lot like Big Brother but people forget what a Big Brother really is. Someone who keeps you save. At least, that is what I was often told to do as a big brother of my little sister. I was to watch out for her and for instance stop her from getting into trouble or crossing the street.
The anarchists would say we don't need Big Brother but what always confuses me about anarchists is why they ain't mass emigrating to Somalia and places like it where there are no nasty laws to restrict you.
Most normal people resent cops/bouncers and their meddling but also wouldn't visit a place without cops/bouncers. Go ahead, proof me wrong, book a flight to Mogadishu.
Systems like this are designed to keep a record of people so that know undesirables can be kept out. For several decades this was considered not done. The right didn't want to spend the money and the left believed all people are basically decent and don't need to be constantly policed. Shortish example: Amsterdam light rail, no conductors for several decades. You could enter and exit legally through any door and there were no ticket checks of any kind. The dream world: people would pay for their tickets regardless. Yeah right. The conductor is back and it was very funny to see how empty the first trams with conductors were when the switch occured.
You can run a bar without a bouncer and trust on the decency of your customers and you might get lucky. Until you attract some anti-social people. They might even be good customers but their actions turn away your other patrons. Seen this happen to a local eatery, wrong kids started to use it as their base, within a year nobody else came there anymore and it went out of business.
When you are
Re:I don't have a problem with it, in theory. (Score:2)
I don't really go to bars anymore, but living in the bible belt out in the valley where we have the highest murder rate in Canada there has been lots of articles in the local papers. This is what I see lacking. No mention of privacy policies and no mention of purging the records in a reasonable time.
Once again an idea that is great in theory but in practice who knows.