Slashdot Mirror


Police Ask Stores to Take Fingerprints

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."

2 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Be a pain in their ass. by SagSaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
  2. Private waiver of rights? by RgnadKzin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!