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."
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!
If fingerprint readers can already be easily tricked, why would it be hard to use the same techniques to forge fingerprints on other things?
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.
"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".
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?
... 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.
frawaradaR anahaha islaginaR!
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!
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.
No sig for you!!
many years ago. Easier to find than gummy bear compound. Just spread glue on fingerprint, let it dry, and peel it off. You may have to wet it a little bit with water before applying, if it's too gooey.
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
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.
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.
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.
Of course, Texans aren't exactly noted for protecting their own civil rights, so it might fly in Dallas.
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
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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!!!
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.
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
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?
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.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."