Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Police Ask Stores to Take Fingerprints 84

Posted by Hemos from the yet-another-step dept.
Coffee Warlord writes "Operation Thumbs Up, scheduled to begin citywide Sunday, aims to help authorities identify check theft and forgery by obtaining a source of identification that can't be stolen or faked - fingerprints. Dawson doesn't expect complaints from customers. "I anticipate if you are not guilty of anything, it's not going to matter to you if someone takes your thumbprint," she said. -- There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to start."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Ask Stores to Take Fingerprints More

Police Ask Stores to Take Fingerprints

Comments Filter:

  • Why not take your DNA? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <ben.int@com> on Saturday September 07, 2002 @08:08PM (#4214093) Homepage
    Why stop there? If check fraud is really that big of a problem, why not just take a hair sample from everyone who writes a check. Then, if you get a fraudlent check, just do a DNA test. I mean "...if you are not guilty of anything, it's not going to matter..." Right?

    Wrong. If information is power, you disempower yourself when you give up your personal information to a store, to the government, or to anyone. And I, for one, would never shop at a store with such a blatant disregard for my privacy. Here's an idea. If check fraud is that big of a problem...stop taking checks!

    • Re:Why not take your DNA? (Score:5, Funny)

      by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @08:58PM (#4214221)
      why stop at just a hair sample?

      why not collect samples of:

      • urine
      • stool
      • hair
      • blood
      • semen

      or, to save time, I'll just give you my underwear and let YOU sort it all out!

    • Re:Why not take your DNA? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by realgone ( 147744 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @09:14PM (#4214256)
      Alternately, if thumbprinting is that big of a problem for you... don't use checks! =)

      Seriously, though, there's nothing stopping a consumer from paying with cash, credit, debit, or live clucking chickens. The simple fact is that checks have become an outdated and fraud-ridden payment system. Many of the stores I frequent have stopped accepting them entirely; the remainder will either have to follow suit before long or rely upon identity-based systems such as this.

      Idealistically, it might be better for all these shops to drop checks and avoid the new privacy issues. (I'd prefer that myself.) Capitalistically, I don't think the market share is small enough for them to do that yet. Think of checks as being where the floppy disk was three years ago: just enough demand to keep them around.

    • The issue isn't whether or not the store has your precious fingerprint; indeed, you left several on the cheque you handed the cashier, dozens more on the handle of the shopping cart, and if you borrowed the pen . . .

      To put it simply: the store already has a copy of your grimey finger prints, albeit a latent copy. They probably have some of your DNA thanks to a few hair fibers you likely shed while waiting in the check-out line.

      The stores worried about forged cheques are going to demand to see your valid driver's license -- probably even recording the number on the front of the cheque. They will likely verify that the address on the license matches the info printed on the front of your friggin' cheque! How private do you think you can be when you're handing out pre-printed forms that contain you name, address and phone number on them (not to mention your signature on the bottom).

      In other words, they know exactly who you are. More accurately, they know whom you purport to be.

      This is an issue about authentication and non-repudiation. I wonder if the problem is with forged cheques a la identity theft (where the thumbprint would be useful in finding the identity of the Bad Guy), or is it with people claiming to have been the victim of someone forging their names when it wasn't an imposter at all.

      If the more common problem is the latter, then the thumbprint serves as a useful tool to ensure non-repudiation. If it's your thumbprint -- something easily determined when testing against a "known good" sample (your thumb) -- then you wrote the cheque, even if you did sign it with a crayon.

  • Forgery? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Inominate ( 412637 )
    If fingerprint readers can already be easily tricked, why would it be hard to use the same techniques to forge fingerprints on other things?
  • Do you really think that police departments are going to hold off using the information to help them "solve" crimes other than check fraud, and people won't get convicted on the basis of being in the vicinity.

  • Well, you could always drive them nuts by, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07, 2002 @08:44PM (#4214183)
    Liguid Skin is a great way to conceal fingerprints, while it's wet press your thumb onto a stamp, say a Tux or the BSD Deamon. Barcodes would be fun too.

  • Can't be stolen or faked, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cryptor3 ( 572787 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @08:54PM (#4214208) Journal
    How's a bit of jello for you?
    Tsutomu Matsumoto, a Japanese cryptographer, recently decided to look at biometric fingerprint devices. These are security systems that attempt to identify people based on their fingerprint. For years the companies selling these devices have claimed that they are very secure, and that it is almost impossible to fool them into accepting a fake finger as genuine. Matsumoto, along with his students at the Yokohama National University, showed that they can be reliably fooled with a little ingenuity and $10 worth of household supplies.
    Read More... [counterpane.com]

  • Convenince vs. Privacy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OneFix ( 18661 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @08:56PM (#4214214)
    "Participating stores will be clearly identified to the public."

    Translation: Warning sign...

    This has always been the way things happen. ATMs take your photograph, stores take drivers license numbers, and some even try to take your SSN...I've seen this happen alot with student IDs (maybe unknowingly) that use your SSN.

    There's always cash....However, I can't see how this is designed to help the rightful owner...if someone steals a checkbook, they can always go to a "non-participating location"...

    Your phone/power/cable/water company isn't making you give them a fingerprint. I personally don't know of many ppl that still use a check...most ppl that I know are using "Check Cards".
    • If we make everyone use a Broken Crypto that we can always decode with super secret Key, we can Monitor Terrorist activities, and that is what we will say so everyone will go along with it
      - The Terrorists use Untainted Crypto and we get spied on

      Lets make it so that you have to leave your figerprint when ever you use a check so we can track criminals who commit fraud, and that is what we will say so everyone will go along with it
      - The Criminals use unpartisipating stores and we get spied on

      Any more examples that fit this little pattern I am missing?
  • Now when someone wants to log into those ultra-secure fingerprint protected CIA/NSI/whatever servers they just have to get a job at the local supermarket and grab an employees e-fingerprint.

    Better yet if you want to frame someone when you crash the electrical grid you just do it from a "secure" e-fingerprint equiped computer and make sure that you leave a long log-trail... Hehe, might be easy to get some high profile military industrial complex types to break into various government provisioning systems and put in large orders for $100,000 toilet seats, the fingerprint is proof, right? Then we could all laugh our butts of when the government is only allowed to buy equipment from foreign, mostly Russian, providers.

    Wasn't there some quote "One step backward for fraud, one great leap backward for freedom" ? No, not yet?

  • I anticipate... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frawaradaR ( 591488 ) on Saturday September 07, 2002 @09:09PM (#4214243) Homepage
    ... that if you are not guilty of anything, it's not going to matter to you if the po-lice installs a few cameras in yer house.

    After all, you are not pursuing any criminable activity within your own walls, are ya!?

    I'd say, that if you _do_ mind being watched by an innocent camera, you behave suspiciously, and are probably guilty of a crime. After all, people who have nothing to hide usually cooperate with us.

    If you do not want to cooperate with us, we will just assume that you in your house run a brothel, manufacture alcoholic beverages, grow marijuana, rip-mix-burn intellectual property protected material, commit sodomy, engage in adultery, prepare for polygami, manufacture Anthrax, communicate on ham radio with suspected terrorists and overthrowers of state, download lewd material on the internet, develop open source Communist applications, and showing anti-patriot emotions posting to unconventional and unorthodox bulletin board systems.

    You, sir, are a threat to our free Christian nation, as given to us by God! You have the right to remain silence, be beaten to death in jail, be transferred to Guantanama Bay for unlimited time, be executed in our humane criminable system even if later DNA tests will prove you're less guilty than we first assumed. Everything you say can and will be recorded and used against you, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

    • Uh, not exactly. It won't matter at first, when they are doing it because I'm not guilty. However it will some matter when I realise that I can't change my clothes without being on cammera, and as a christain I'm not supposed to be an exhibitionist. And no running to the kitchen in the middle of the night in my underwear anymore. (single people) Or no kids anymore cause sex is on cammera (married people).

      Of course you wouldn't have to have the cameras in the bedrooms and bathroom, but then you will discover that those running a brothel just have clients come in via the window. It isn't hard to plant landscaping that looks nice (in a unique way) that makes it easy for clients to get in a window. If the windows are too small, just replace them with modern Low-E windows that just happen to be bigger.

      I'm sure you can come up with plenty of ways do all of the above illegal stuff in any room where they don't place cammeras.

  • Be a pain in their ass. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SagSaw ( 219314 ) <<gro.ssomm> <ta> <todhsals>> on Saturday September 07, 2002 @09:53PM (#4214361)
    First make sure this won't get you into legal trouble, as it may really piss off the store.

    Go to a participating store. Appear at the checkout with a large number of items you wish to purchase (two cartloads of perishable food items should be good; extreamly heavy/bulky/difficult to handle items work, too). Offer to pay with a check, but refuse to give a finger/thumb print. Kindly ask the cashier if there is any way to pay with a check, but without giving the print. If the answer is no, explain to the cashier (better yet, their manager) that since they won't accept your check you have no way to pay. Leave (without the merchandise, of course).

    Employees of the store will have to restock your entire attempted puchase, and some perishable items may have to be discarded. Enough people doing this will make it clear to the store that excessive ID collection is not an economically sound move.
    • <RANT>
      This won't piss off the store, it'll only piss off the powerless employees working for minimum wage. The manager won't be putting those items away, it'll be the bagboy. What good will that do?

      It's sad to watch people complain to clerks like they can do something about a policy such as this. Having worked enough low end jobs in my life, I can tell you that the clerks can gripe and grumble, but they're not the ones who will get things changed. Find the Manager! Talk to his boss! Make *them* sweat. Don't piss on the guy who's working his ass of trying to get through college. Don't shit on the mother of three who's there just to make ends meet. Find someone who can actually change the policy, and then piss them off. Leave the little guys alone, they probably dislike this as much as you.
      • The "powerless employees working for minimum wage" are getting paid to restock these items. Any manager that's worth a damn will become concerned when many of their employees are having to spend time restocking attempted purchases, thus lowering the profitablity of the store.
        • You say that like they're being paid enough to deal with BS that was proposed.

          If enough people on a regular enough basis were to do something like this, sure, it would work. On the other hand, going to the manager with one month's worth of grocery receipts(be sure to have them totaled,) and telling him politely that you, your friends and neighbors are not going to be shopping at his store anymore because of the policy is a much more productive way of dealing with the situation. Trust me, if you give the manager hard numbers, like a stack of receipts, it will make them sweat more than loading up a cart, throwing a tantrum in line, then making employees run all over the store putting up items will. If you do that, you're just a jackass, not an activist.
      • Thank you very, very much. Yours was the most insightful, level-headed comment I've read in this whole topic.

        I've worked at a bank for over a year now; policy at the bank, if you don't personally know any customer who's getting cash from any transaction, is to take a driver's license.

        Commence bitching and moaning.

        "I've been coming to this bank for thirty years." "I'm depositing half that check, why do I need to show I.D.?" "It's my account."

        The proper answers, in order: "I haven't worked here long enough to know you." "How do I know the check is real?" "Would you prefer if I NEVER asked for I.D. to withdraw money from this account?"

        The answer we tellers always give, for all of them: "Sorry." Then we sigh, and it's just one more hassle in a day full of bullshit, because people think they should be exempt from the rules that are, in this case, there for THEIR PROTECTION.

        For non-customers cashing on-us checks, we get fingerprints. There are regular people that come in every other week that have to do this, and they understand, and they're cool with it. The amazing thing is that if you're friendly to us, we're going to remember that, and you, and stop needing I.D. before long.

        Please, people. Don't do what the parent post suggests. The cashier didn't write the policy, and they would certainly rather not bother getting prints. Have some consideration for somebody other than yourself-- employees are people, too, they just happen to wear a uniform.
        • > Please, people. Don't do what the parent post suggests. The cashier didn't write the policy, and they would certainly rather not bother getting prints. Have some consideration for somebody other than yourself-- employees are people, too, they just happen to wear a uniform.

          I'm sorry, but that's plain wrong. They don't have to wear a uniform. They don't have to work there. If they can't deal with complaints, they can quit. No-one in the first world starves to death if they don't work.

          While I agree it's hard on the employees in the short-term, eventually the employer will get the message. For one thing, continually replacing staff is expensive.

          <rubs fingers together>

          Hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for the cashiers...

          And yeah, I've worked minimum wage before.

        • "The amazing thing is that if you're friendly to us, we're going to remember that, and you, and stop needing I.D. before long."

          Spoken like a true authority figure. I've heard the police use a slight variation on this exact line many times - "If you're friendly and do what we say, we won't give you a hard time". It's amazing how the shortsighted cogs fall into place immedately.

          "There not my rules"
          "I just enforce the rules"
          "I enforce the rules because I believe in them [For your Protection]"
          "I enforce the rules to the letter because I don't like you"
          "Treat me with respect or I'll enforce more rules".

          • Not at all, really.

            If you'll check out my original post, I said that we have to ask for identification *when we don't know the person.*

            Perhaps I should have elaborated in my original post on that point: we're more likely to remember a person who makes our day a little better, even if it's just because of a smile and a friendly comment.

            And if we know that person, we can put our initials on their check instead of their driver's license number to indicate to our over-worked fraud department that yes, we know it's the right name on the check.

            On another note, your disdain for rules in place "for your protection" is, in this case, unjustified. What would happen if a bank never asked for I.D.? A lot of empty accounts and a lot of pissed-off customers. There's no way every teller is going to know every customer-- there's a few hundred tellers in my regional bank, and thousands and thousands of accounts spread across three states.

            Do you get pissed off every time the ATM asks for your PIN?
            • The point of the entire article is not to question the concept of asking for ID. It is about collecting too much information on individuals.

              Taking a fingerprint in addition to a signature is that much less trusting. It degrades the common persons morale, and it makes even more strict forms of Identification that much less far fetched.

              The Hitler analogy is very overused ; but look at the United States and Touristy-Canada post September 11th. Flags on everything, signs of solidarity and support for the US's not-yet-defined war on who-even-knew-yet.

              Everybody was willing to undergo even more Identification, a national ID card was suggested and laws to ensure people carry ID were suggested all over the place.

              This *exact*, *EXACT* scenario happened in Nazi Germany pre-Nazi. That's how the minorities are ID'd. No matter what institution you work for, it is a vital part of the country as a whole - and the choices it makes regarding how it treats citizens affect the country as a whole, and more specifically the entire countries sense of Freedom.

              Don't banks often advertise along the lines, "You're not just a number to us". Yeah, now you're a number and a fingerprint and a retinal scan. I would be pissed off if the ATM asked for a fingerprint.

              Your overworked fraud department can get some more funding if it needs to hire people. Yeah, I'm really sad for the Banks - they're definately not making enough money.

              • I would love it if my ATM took a fingerprint. There is one thing biometric identification has, convenience. I can't fucking forget it, like I do oh so often with my ATM card, my drivers licence, etc.

                Any other use of it, I say fuck em.
            • kection"? Not. Banks would suffer a lot less from fraud if they'd simply VERIFY THE SIGNATURE ON THE CHECK against the signature on file for that account (possibly with a face-on photograph in addition), with the option to check ID if they don't match, or if the teller feels it's warranted. It's often said that it's too time-intensive to actually check the signature like they're supposed to, so why not display the authorized signature associated with the account when the account is accessed by the teller? "It would cost too much and take too much time" isn't an acceptable response from an institution entrusted with peoples' money like that - there are methods that will work just fine without requiring something as intrusive as a fingerprint.
              • (Doh! The preview hosed me on my previous post!!) Something else I had to explain to a teller once was the concept of a "bearer instrument". If I write a check to "CASH", it's a bearer instrument, meaning it is to be paid to whoever presents it for payment. What the bank is supposed to do is once again, verify the signature, then pay out the amount specified to whoever is standing before them. Requiring ID protects the bank, not the individual - if the bank cashes a check that doesn't have a valid signature, *they're* supposed to be liable, not the account holder, but that's not how most banking regs are written.
        • "I was just following orders" didn't cut it as a defense at Nurenburg, and it doesn't work now. Just because you are on the bottom of a hierarchial power structure does not release you from accepting responsibility for your actions.
      • If enough low level employees complain to their manager about this happening, and they will, that is a better way to get the word accross than trying to find a manager in a store and get her to listen to you. Better that it come from the people she has to listen to every day.
    • First, the best way for this to work would be to get forty of fifty people to do this at the same time and only then after you've invited the media to swing by to watch your little protest. Doing it one person at a time is not a protest - it's simply being (as you put it) a pain in the ass.

      No matter how you do this, you better select stuff you actually want. Although it's unlikely that the store manager is going to be in a position to reverse the policy on the spot, there's a fair chance (as there is with any piece of overhyped hardware) that the stupid thing will be down and the clerks will just be gathering info the old fashioned way. In either of those cases, you owe the store your patronage - the first case out of support for their stance and the second just out of courtesy for you getting in line with a cart of goods.

  • Will this replace the my shoppers club card?

    At least then I wouldn't forget it and have to pay full price for my soda pop that was on sale.

  • Wah, wah, wah... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 )
    Stores have been doing this for years. I remember years ago a particular store required you to have a store card that 'allowed' you to write checks over certian amounts (ie, you could write a check to $20 without the card, and up to $500 with the card). Many not only require your address and phone preprinted on the card, but they ask to see your drivers license and write down the DL number as well.

    The solitary bare naked truth is that checks are so easy to forge that companies lose millions a year with forgeries that are never caught, or difficult to prosecute. Companies have a right to determine what forms of payment they will accept and what stipulations they will place on various forms of payment. Obviously check processing is a huge industry right now, and most of the stores here fight this sort of fraud by doing electronic check processing. You sign the check, they put it through a reader, and the funds are instatnly transferred. If the bank refuses the check then another form of payment is requested before they ever leave the store. The problem here is that these companies charge per check in a manner similar to credit cards (fixed per transaction + percentage of transaction) which can sometimes be a bigger overall cost than the fraud. So turn to some low-tech solution - fingerprinting, which is cheap, and there's no charge unless there's fraud, and if the fraud is small they make a note of it and store it for future prosecution if that customer returns, or send the info to the police.

    The bottom line is that they are trying to run a business. They have a financial interest in preventing fraud of many forms, and I believe that they deserve the right to do so. If you desire to keep your fingerprint out of their file drawers, then chances are you're paranoid enough to pay by cash for everything anyway, and this won't bother you.

    -Adam

    I swear, some people just love to go to the beach and moan. Don't tell me you sad story - suck it up and adapt.
  • I don't think you'll have to worry about CompUSA doing this. It's ironic that a "cutting edge" technology is farther behind technology wise behind the scenes than some 3rd world countries.
  • Another reason to use cash, no tracibility.
  • Last time I wrote a check there, 1996-ish, they fingerprinted me. Wasn't too happy about being treated like a potential criminal then, either.
  • Here we have things called cheque gaurntee cards and you must use them every time you use a cheque in a store.

    The bank issues them and they have set ammounts that are an upper limit that you can write cheques to.

    Also if you are with a good bank like rbs they will put your photo on it so there is no doubt the person using the card (which is always a debit/credit card as well) is you.

    Another great thing about these is that no matter how much money you have in your account becuause the cheque was presented with a card the bank must pay up on it so it is really useful if you are a poor starving strudent.

    However for the wonderful UK this is not enough, I mean ffs having your photo on the card is not enough so they are testing this system out here as well!!

    Just my 2 gb pennies :)

  • I get 1% cash back on all purchases on my credit card. I have to buy my checks for about $.25 each. There is about a $100/year difference between the two.

    I know that many poor people cannot get credit cards, but it turns out the really poor people that you worry about can't get checking accounts either (or if they have them write bad checks, either by accident or intent). Thus cash is king amoung the poor, and the middle and above should use credit.

  • I work at a store, and I'll tell you.. This will NOT work. Just asking for a drivers license number gets most people huffy. Fingerprints? No way.. Unless check is the only form of payment in your store, this will not work.
  • Let's look at the numbers provided by the article.

    There are 10000 businesses which lost $1.7M in 3.5 years, or $57 per business per year.

    The proposed systems will cost "between $2 and $40 a month to operate", or $12 to $480 per business per year. These numbers from the proponents are probably well on the low side - will it really cost only $12 per year to collect customer's fingerprints? Give me a break.

    $57 lost per business per year is barely a nuisance amount and for most businesses it's covered by insurance anyway.

  • Many banks make you provide your thumbprint when you cash a check, if you don't have an account there.

    Many Notaries and Lawyers and Brokers use the thumbprint along with your signature when recording documents. Why? Because you can forge signatures... it's much harder or impossible to forge a thumbprint, and you can't get away from it.

    Why NOT for checks? I'll gladly put my thumbprint on a credit card receipt, or a check.

    If you wanted, you could always carry the little inkpad in your wallet and use your thumbprint as your official signature for everything you do.

    ~DW
  • I forget which rent-a-car company tried taking fingerprints of their customers. I think the program survived a month before they dropped it because of complaints.

    Of course, Texans aren't exactly noted for protecting their own civil rights, so it might fly in Dallas.

  • Let's not pretend that stores are losing money. The cost of fraud is built into the prices they charge. If a company suddenly stopped losing $5,000 per month (or whatever) to fraud, then they could (and would in this competetive environment) lower their prices and still make the same profit.

    This is about making the job of the police easier, but only the stupidest of criminals would:

    a) Pass a check in a store that requires fingerprints when there are stores that don't, or
    b) Provide a valid print when there are ways around it

    If we're just looking at cost, I refuse to believe it costs less to install this new system, train employees (high turnover in these jobs means constant training), and pay the monthly cost to maintain the system, than it does to simply charge all customers a tiny extra percentage on each item.

    DoD

  • I will not willingly give up my finger prints, DNA, or any other information that would allow the State to identify me.

    A cheque, unless it's fraudulent, personally identifies you, your bank, your branch, and your bank account number.

    The old "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need to worry about it" argument usually stands my hair on end, but somehow it's appropriate this time.

    What I would envision is rather the bank having the finger print on file, which is verified at the time of sale.

    Take this to the next level of paranoia and you get an embedded chip in the palm of your hand. You would place your hand flat on the reader to have your prints and the chip scanned simultaneously.
  • Is them saying that Drivers Licences are not secure enough to prevent a simple crime like check fraud, yet our whole response to the terrorism in the sky threat is to show your drivers license to about 1/2 dozen people each time you fly...

    At least Arlington admits to reality, even if I don't like the solution
    • There is no statutory or regulatory requirement for anyone to show a government issued ID in order to fly domestically. The only reason they can use to not board you is if you refuse to consent to a search or if you refuse to show "positive" identification.

      There is a security directive (which is not published in the Federal Register, and so cannot be applied to the public) that says that if you do not show government issued ID, they can search your bags, but they are going to randomly do that anyway.

      The ID requirement is from the airline's Contract of Carriage, aka Tariff. The CoC's all say "positive" identification, not "government" identification.

      I fly with my Sam's Club card. I generally do not get rousted, as I display my Sam's card in a yellow six-pointed star that I hang around my neck.

      One ticket agent said, "Cool, that's a good idea. Now you don't have to drag it out every time we want to see it." I asked her what she knew of Germany from 1938 to 1944 and she became very quiet.

      Because I do not carry government issued ID (I can't get any because I have no SSN), I ALWAYS get searched.

      Consider how long this foolishness would last if only 10% of you did the same thing I do. It take about 10 minutes for them to hand check you and your bag at the gate. Imagine 20 people at every flight having to be hand checked. Do the math, 200 minutes.

      It would back up the boarding and the planes would have to leave late. The airlines could not afford this for very long and would be forced to rebel against the TSA requirements of the National Socialists currently in power. Civil disobediance at its best.

      Also, if the person in front of you or behind you is pulled aside for a search, and he/she turns to you and says, "I would like to commission you as a witness. Do you accept your commission?" Please say yes. I will do the same for you. It keeps the nazis at bay when we watch over each other.

      Also advise the nazis that if they touch your person with that wand or with their hands without express permission, that you will consider that to be an assault, and you have a witness. They will become very, very polite. Also, if they ask to touch your person, they can only do it with the backs of their hands. They can only search under your clothing by touch if their wand alerts. No alert, no probable cause for a more intrusive search.

      For those of you sheople who think this is an imposition upon your time, I say to you: My essential liberty is more important than your temporary safety. Unless you can guarantee that I will not be subject to a terror attack if I throw away all of my rights, then get out of my way.

      For those of you sheople who think that this will make it easier for terrorists, I say to you: Let me carry my pistol and I will protect your feeble arse.
  • This ball of wax is akin to the "Thumbprint Signature" that banks are "requiring" of non-account holders to cash checks drawn on their bank. e.g. You pay me with a check, I take the check to your bank and try to cash it. I do not have an account, so they want my thumbprint.

    The Uniform Commercial Code, within the Negotiable Instruments article, states that they can require "reasonable identification." Identification requires that they have some record against which a comparison can be made. Thumbprint collection does not fall into this category, as they do not have my thumbprint on file, so they cannot do a comparison in order to use it for identification.

    The issue is that they are collecting evidence in anticipation of a crime. Because the multi-jurisdictional municipal corporations that masquerade as governments cannot lawfully compel you to provide a thumprint (self-incrimination), the banks cannot force this type of information collection.

    However, it is difficult to fight this legal battle as it stands. The way I approach this is to say: Fine, I will allow the bank to borrow my private property until the check is finally cashed. I will provide the thumbprint in order to cash this check so long as the bank enters into an agreement with me that it will not release my private property to anyone. The check, when finally processed, will be released to me, or it will be destroyed in my presence, and further the bank agrees that should my private property be released to any 3rd party without my written permission, they are liable to me for $1M in the event of a breach of contract.

    I do this because if I put my thumbprint on a check, it could end up at a crime scene tomorrow.

    Now, the bank is in a conundrum. It can refuse to safegaurd my personal property, but then it is not I who has refused to provide a thumbprint, it is they who have refused to exercise reasonable care when I entrust them with my personal property.

    If they refuse to cash the check under these circumstances, I sue their customer (you) for issuing a check that your bank refuses to accept and pay under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. I cannot sue the bank, as I am not their customer.

    In such a case, your cause of action is against your bank, for failure of fiduciary responsibility. So you sue them, and the banks end up having to drop this foolishness.

    Alcohol prohibition was not repealed because of public debate. Alcohol prohibition was repealed because the Department of Justice had to handle 70,000 civil complaints filed each year for breaches of civil rights under color of law by their enforcement officers.

    Yes, I do offer to open an account so that I can be a customer and not have to post a thumbprint, but they do not want to open accounts for citizens who have no SSN.
  • 5 years ago, I was the victim of a bad check - a "customer" in Texas paid by check for my C.O.D. shipment of RAM. The biggest problem with collecting the money (which I attempted with no success) was identifying the criminal, the person who handed the bad check to the letter carrier. There were name, address, and driver's license number on the check, but the letter carrier needed to testify that the defendant standing there in the courtroom was actually the same person who handed the check over. How would a letter carrier remember one face out of thousands in a month?

    A fingerprint applied to a check - perhaps even in place of a signature - isn't so bad an idea. It offers positive identification of the person handing the check over. Collecting fingerprints? Data mining? There may be some commercial value to the absolute identity of the person handing the check, but they already collect your name, address, driver's license number, and so forth. If you want anonymity in your transactions, use cash.

  • There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to start.

    Well, I wish someone would. I'm moving to California in three weeks, and they require a thumbprint on your driver's license. I'm not comfortable with this, and I don't know what law enforcement purpose it serves, but on the other hand I really haven't been able to think of any concrete objections to it. How could it be abused? In what way is my privacy harmed? Anyone?

    • There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to start.

      Well, I wish someone would. I'm moving to California in three weeks, and they require a thumbprint on your driver's license. I'm not comfortable with this, and I don't know what law enforcement purpose it serves, but on the other hand I really haven't been able to think of any concrete objections to it. How could it be abused? In what way is my privacy harmed? Anyone?

      The issue here is that they are attempting to co-opt your personal property for public use. This cannot be done without compensation, unless you waive this; reference Article I, Section 19 of the California constitution:

      CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
      ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

      SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

      I would sue the California Department of Transportation over this matter (if they are the licensing entity).

      However, please note well that only California "resident" aliens are required to get a license. As a citizen of one of the states of the Union, I am not a "resident" alien. There is a difference between citizens and "resident" aliens, reference Vattel's Law of Nations, and the Constitution of Wisconsin, in the Declaration of Rights.

      Also, the California Administrative Procedure Act requires that administrative agencies promulgate regulations in order to show the "general effect" of statutes, or if the agency intends to "affect substantive rights." In this case, the substantive right is my right to liberty upon the public easements that you and I grant to each other for access and egress. Check the regulations, and I will bet that the only licenses mentioned are COMMERCIAL driver's licenses, which makes sense, as artificial persons engaged in commerce upon the public easements do so as a privilege.

      Practically, however, unless you are prepared to learn what it takes to stop the juggernaut of the Law Enforcement Growth Industry, I would be a good little slave and waive my right to compensation for my personal property and beg the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (which differs from the California republic), to grant me permission to use my own roads.

      By the way, when you get the license, will they accept gold or silver coin in tender of payment for the debt imposed by the license fee? hmmmm? I thought not. Well, if they are making something other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt, then they cannot very well be the state, can they?

      What are they?

      They are multi-jurisdictional municipal corporations that merely masquerade as lawful governments.
  • I can't believe thi*...hold up..yes..I can believe this idiocy from a govenrment body. This is ludicrous...HELLO !!!..Anyone heard of graphing? Leave my fingerprint and the next day someone is using it...not that far fetched people. DL Delray Beach, FL.
  • I can't remember the last time I saw someone write a check for something in a store. Everyone just pays with their debit/atm card. Maybe it's different down in the states, but almost every store up here in Canada takes Interac.

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Close